
• .4 *'♦ 4*-4 











Classy_ 

/.' ( 

Book_„_. 


9 











































! 









































































































I 















* 

































































t 






















. . 




- 






I" 














v 





















































I 













































% 











\ 





















37th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. j Report 
2 d S ession. j j No. 2. 



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. 




Mr. Wasiiburne, from the^ select committee to inquire into the con¬ 
tracts of the government, made the following 

REPORT. 


The special committee of the House appointed to inquire into all the facts 
and circumstances connected ivith contracts and agreements l>y or with 
the government , groioing out of its operations in suppressing the rebel¬ 
lion, submitted the following report , in part: 

By the action of the present House of Representatives at the extra 
session of Congress, on the 8th day of July last, and on the 10th day 
of the same month, a special committee of seven members was ap¬ 
pointed for the purposes which are set forth in the resolutions of the 
House, which will be found embodied in the journal of the committee, 
and to which reference is made. 

Acting under the resolution which authorized the committee to sit 
during the recess of Congress and at such times and places as might 
be deemed proper, they commenced the discharge of their duties in 
the city of New York on the 27th day of August last. They have 
prosecuted their labors from that time to the present with as much 
diligence as they were able to bestow. As the subject of their inves¬ 
tigations was not limited to any particular section of the country, the 
committee, in accordance with the authority granted in one of the 
resolutions, deemed it their duty to take upon themselves the task of 
visiting various localities in different parts of the country where it 
was supposed that examinations were necessary. This was done in 
order to save the government the expense of the attendance of wit¬ 
nesses from long distances, and for the purpose of being enabled in 
the particular localities to more thoroughly investigate such transac¬ 
tions as seemed to demand their attention. This has resulted in 
the saving of a large expense to the government. The mileage of 
the witnesses examined by your committee, had they been brought 
to Washington, would have amounted to $30,000. It was deemed 
proper to pursue the investigations during the recess at other points 





2 


•U542 


than the capital, leaving the examinations here to be made while 
Congress was in session. The committee has held its sittings in 
Washington, New York, Boston, New Bedford, St. Louis, Cairo, 
Chicago, and Harrisburg, and the members have travelled between 
six thousand and seven thousand miles. They have examined two 
hundred and sixty-five witnesses. The testimony embraced in the 
present report will cover 1,109 pages. 

To cover the expenses of this investigation and that of other CQm- 
mittees there was appropriated the sum of $10,000. The expenses 
of the committee paid thus far, (excepting the pay of the steno¬ 
grapher,) being for the travelling and other expenses of the commit¬ 
tee, for the mileage and fees of witnesses, for the mileage and fees of 
the sergeant-at-arms, for messenger hire, for stationery, rent of 
rooms, telegraphing, express charges, &c., amount to the sum of 
$5,153 38. The amount of $6,166 48 was paid to your committee, 
resulting from the investigation of a contract, to which more particu¬ 
lar reference is made hereafter, an acknowledgment of the receipt of 
which by the Secretary of the Treasury will be found in the journal 
of the committee. 

The labors of the committee are far from being closed. A large 
amount of testimony has been taken which has not been written out 
by the stenographer, and which will be made the subject of a further 
report. Only partial testimony has been taken on other subjects, 
and further testimony on such other subjects will be taken before the 
committee will report their final conclusions to the House. A large 
number of transactions at Washington and elsewhere seem to deserve 
attention, and with the approbation of the House the committee pro¬ 
pose to vigorously prosecute their investigations so long as it may 
appear that they are demanded by the public interest. 

The committee desire to bear testimony to the faithful and satis¬ 
factory manner in which their stenographer and clerk, Theodore F. 
Andrews, esq., and the sergeant-at-arms of the House, General Ed¬ 
ward Ball, have discharged their respective duties. 


STEAMER CATALINE. 

Among the first subjects investigated by the committee was the 
charter of the steamer Cataline. This investigation was made under 
the express terms of the resolutions raising the committee, the House 
having by subsequent resolution requested the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury to suspend the payment of the amount due by the terms of that 
charter until the subject could be investigated. 

The Cataline was chartered by Colonel D. D. Tompkins, assistant 
quartermaster general/at New York city, under the following order 
from General Wool: 



hi 'p 


3 


“ St. Nicholas Hotel, 

“New York City , April 23, 1861. 

‘‘Sir: You will make a contract with Captain Comstock for char¬ 
tering two light-draught steamers to ply between Havre de Grace- 
and Annapolis. I desire those steamers to be got ready with the 
least possible delay. If you can, without delaying these steamers, 
put as many provisions on board for the use of the troops in the, 
south as will not impede their progress. 

“Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

“JOHN E. WOOL, 

“Major General. 

“Major Grinnell will receipt for the provisions. 

“ Colonel D. D. Tompkins, 

“Assistant Quartermaster General, N. F.” 


No doubt can be entertained that Colonel Tompkins acted in entire 
good faith, so far as he was connected with the transaction. He tes¬ 
tifies as follows as to the circumstances immediately connected with 
the charter: 

Captain Comstock came to me and presented to me the Kill Yon 
Kull and the Cataline. The first proposition that was made made 
the government responsible for her loss under all circumstances. 
That I declined doing. I told Captain Comstock I would not enter¬ 
tain the proposition. Then he came in with a second one, which I 
did accept. This was soon after the riot at Baltimore, and we were 
very busy here night and day. I had no time to look into the matter 
personally. 1 had confidence in Captain Comstock, and I told him I 
should depend upon him to say whether it was all right in regard to 
the value of the boat, Ac. He said, “Colonel Tompkins, it is all 
right. 7 ’ Here is a copy of the contract: 

“New' York, April 25, 1861. 

“Dear Sir: I will charter the steamer Cataline to the United 
States government for a term not less than three months, at ten 
thousand dollars per month, payable monthly. The boat will be run 
at owners’ expense, and be purchasable at any time during said three 
months for $50,000 by the government. All risks usually covered by 
marine and fire policies to be borne by the owners, all other risks by 
the government; and in case of loss by any of the latter risks, fifty 
thousand dollars to be paid for the boat, and all injuries in proportion. 

“Yours, truly, 

“M. M. FREEMAN. 

“Captain Jos. S. Tompkins.” 

Upon that offer I indorsed the following acceptance: 

“The within proposition is accepted, time to commence at 12 
o’clock m. on the 25th day of April instant, and to terminate at the 
same hour on the day she may be returned to the owners in New 
York, with the understanding that all time lost by damage to the 
boat by the elements, bursting of boilers, breaking of machinery, or 
collision at sea or in port, to be deducted. It being understood that 


4 


the boat is to be kept in perfect running order all the time she is in 
service of the government. Payment for services to be made upon 
the certificate of an officer of the army, or the affidavit of the master 
of the steamer, which must be explicit as to the fact of her having 
been kept in perfect running order. 

“D. I). TOMPKINS, 

‘ ‘Assistant Quartermaster General.' 1 

The testimony taken before the committee establishes the following 
facts: Immediately after the date of General Wool's order, Captain 
Com3tock, in company with Samuel W. Morton, visited the Cataline, 
then owned by Margaret Corlies, and lying at Brooklyn, New York. 
Morton made a conditional contract for her purchase, and on the 
same or the next day informed John E. Develin, a lawyer of New 
York city, and one of the proprietors of the Astor House Hotel, that 
he -‘thought there was a pretty good chance of furnishing a boat to 
the government, and that something could be made with good man¬ 
agement and on the 24th of April, the day after the order of 
General Wool was issued, John E. Develin purchased the vessel for 
$18,000; the purchase was made in the name of Charles E. Stetson, 
jr., the brother-in-law of Develin, and also his partner in the proprie¬ 
torship of the Astor House Hotel. M. M. Freeman & Co., ship 
merchants of New York city, furnished the $18,000 to pay for the 
vessel, and also the means to provide for her outfit. On the 25th of 
April the proposition to charter the vessel Avas drawn up by John E. 
Develin, at the Astor House, in the presence of Captain Comstock 
and M. M. Freeman, and left with Captain Comstock; and Colonel 
Tompkins relying, as he states in his evidence, on the assurance of 
Captain Comstock “that all was right," accepted the proposition, 
and the vessel, partially loaded, left New York for Annapolis on the 
29th day of April, after an unsuccessful effort to obtain a clearance 
to leave the port of New York on the 27th day of that month, and 
remained in the employment of the government until the 2d day of 
July last, when she was destroyed by fire, having been in the em¬ 
ployment of the government for two months and eight days. 

It does not appear that Captain Comstock made any effort to 
charter the vessel from her original owner, or that any person, except 
Morton and Develin, and parties acting in concert with them, were 
informed of the purpose of the government to charter this or any 
other vessel until after the purchase was made. 

Transactions affecting public interests should be more open and 
direct. It is to be regretted that this transaction is so complicated 
and obscure. There are apparently three parties who seem to be 
interested in the charter of the Cataline to the government: John E. 
Develin, who really made the purchase, Charles E. Stetson, jr., in 
whose name the purchase was made, and M. M. Freeman & Co., who 
advanced the money, both for the purchase and outfit of the vessel. 
The relation of each of these parties to the transaction will be briefly 
considered. From the testimony it would seem that Mr. Develiii 
had no interest in the purchase of the vessel. He testified as follows: 


5 


\ 

“ Question. What was the object in taking the boat in the name of 
a third party? 

Answer. I intended the boat for my brother, Charles A. Stetson, jr., 
and that he should have the benefit of the purchase, as it made no 
difference with me, and I advanced him the money to buy her for 
himself and on his own account. 

Question. What conversation had you, after the purchase of the 
boat, with Stetson as to the probability of the government chartering 
her? 

Answer. None. 

Question. The purpose, then, for which the purchase had been 
made had not been disclosed to him up to the time of your interview 
with Freeman ? 

Answer. I do not think it had. I might or I might not have dis¬ 
closed it. We were and are very intimate, as much so as if we had 
been actually brothers born, and all I have is his if he wants it, and 
I think he reciprocates this sentiment towards me. 

Question. Was he aware that the title was to be taken in his 
name ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; for I told him to buy the boat and have her 
transferred to himself. He bought the boat, and did such things at 
the custom-house as were necessary to vest the title in him. I do 
not know the details of that matter. 

Question. But he was not aware of the particular purpose you had 
in view in making the purchase ? 

Answer. Not that I know of positively, but he may have known. 

Question. Although the title was to be taken in his name, was it 
the understanding that it was to be a joint affair between you ? 

Answer. There was no understanding about it; and I can only ex¬ 
plain what may seem strange about this by the fact of the community 
of interest in most matters which exists between him and me and the 
mutual confidence between us. 

Charles E. Stetson, jr., seems to have been innocent of any design 
in the purchase of the vessel, and says in his testimony : 

Question. Have you had any connexion with the steamer Cataline ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. State to the committee what connexion you had with the 
purchasing the steamer Cataline, and the chartering her to the gov¬ 
ernment. 

Answer. About the 20th of April last my brother-in-law, John E. 
Develin, came to me and said that the steamer was to be bought, and 
wanted me to buy it, and he would furnish the money. I went down 
to the office where the owners were, and the ship was there made over 
to me in my name. I believe the bill of sale runs to my name alone. 

Question. When did Develin first introduce this subject to you ? 

Answer. The evening before that, I believe, and I went down the 
next morning at 10 o’clock. 

Question. What was the motive upon your part for the purchase ? 
What interest were you to have in the steamer ? 


6 


Answer. I left that matter to be determined altogether by my 
brother-in-law. 

Question. What was the price paid ? 

Answer. $18,000. 

Question. By whom was the money furnished ? 

Answer. Develin gave me a check for $10,000, which was paid to 
Corlies at Develin’s office. We then went down to an office in Lib¬ 
erty street and closed the bargain, where Freeman furnished the 
balance of the money. 

Question. Had you any interview with Freeman in relation to the 
purchase ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you know at the time that Freeman advanced the 
money ? 

Answer. I did not know anything about it, except that I saw his 
check, and afterwards I knew that he had advanced the other money. 

Examination by Mr. Holman. 

Question. Did you give your individual note of $18,000 for this 
vessel, or was it indorsed or otherwise secured by other parties ? 

Answer. I think it was my own note. 

Question. What information had you that Develin was proposing 
to purchase this vessel, either in your own name or that of any other 
party, prior to the time when he spoke to you ? 

Answer. None whatever. He came to me in the evening after we 
had left the office, and called me up to his room and spoke to me about 
it. I think that was about the 20th or the 21st of April. It was the 
night before the vessel was finally bought. The vessel was bought 
the next day and $10,000 paid. 

Question. And was it the next day that the boat was chartered by 
the government ? 

Answer. I think it was. 

Question. What had you heard Develin say before that time about 
the government purchasing or chartering the vessel ? 

Answer. Nothing. 

Question. What had you heard Captain Comstock say upon the 
subject ? 

Answer. Nothing until after the vessel was bought, and I think not 
until after it was chartered.” 

Neither of these parties seem to have had any agency in the actual 
furnishing of the vessel to the government, for while Develin actually 
made the contract for the purchase, and Stetson became invested 
with the title of the vessel, neither of them advanced any money. 
The $18,000 was furnished by Freeman & Co., whose connexion with 
the vessel is stated by M. M. Freeman in his testimony, as follows: 

. “ Question. What is your business? 

Answer. I am a shipping merchant, in this city. 


7 


Question. Are you in the habit of making advances upon the pur¬ 
chase of vessels ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Who is Mr. Develin? 

Answer. A brother-in-law of Mr. Stetson, and a lawyer of this city. 

Question. Has he any connexion with the merchant marine service ? 

Answer. Not that I know of, except as a lawyer. 

Question. How much money did you advance upon that contract? 

Answer. Eighteen thousand dollars in cash to pay for the boat, and 
we advanced about $5,000 more before the boat left the port. 

Question. How did you make the advance? 

Answer. I made the advance to Develin in cash to pay for the 
boat; that was the understanding. 

Question. By check? 

Answer, Yes, sir. 

Question. On what bank ? 

Answer. Upon the Mechanics’ Banking Association. 

Question. You advanced $18,000 at one time, and $5,000 at a sub¬ 
sequent time? 

Answer. Yes, sir; but the $5,000 was for the outfit of the boat ; 
such as necessary furniture, provisions, coal, and other necessary 
articles. 

Question. To whom did you make this last advance ? 

Answer. To the different parties with whom the bills were made. 

Question. What did you have for your security? 

Answer. I had the boat, the policy of insurance upon her, the con¬ 
tract with the government, and notes from Mr. Stetson and Mr. Dev¬ 
elin. 

Question. What w^ere the terms of the advance ? 

Answer. That I was to have a commission for the doing of the busi¬ 
ness, the interest upon my money, and an interest of one-tenth in the 
profits of the contract. 

Question. What was the full price to be paid for the steamer by 
Mr. Stetson? 

Answer. $18,000 as she then was, requiring some outfit, which we 
put on afterwards.” 

“Question. What did you know about the boat? 

Answer. My knowledge of the boat was derived principally from 
representations of Mr. Develin, who said she had been examined 
thoroughly, and reported as cheap at $18,000. The owner had asked 
$20,000 for her. We had the boat examined by the Commercial In¬ 
surance Company, to whom we applied to have the boat insured, but 
they asked so much that we did not have the boat insured by them. 

Question. What knowledge had you in reference to the sea-worthi¬ 
ness of the boat ? 

Answer. I had seen Captain Comstock, who had been ordered to 
-examine her. 

Question. Had you ever seen the boat? 


L 


8 


Answer. Not before Mr. Develin came to me about her. 

Question. Did you see her before you closed the contract? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. You spoke of applying for an insurance, and stated that 
the rate was so high that you did not get her insured. 

Answer. I did not get her insured at that office. 

Question. What rate of insurance did they demand? 

Answer. Seven per cent, a month. 

Question. Did you get her insured afterwards? 

Answer. I did against fire. 

Question. At what office? 

Answer. In nine different offices in the city of New York. 

Question. Have you a memorandum of the offices, and the amount 
for which the boat was insured ? 

Answer. 1 have not here. 

Question. Can you get it and present it to the committee? 

Answer. I can, and will. 

Question. Can you state the rate of insurance you paid? 

Answer. I cannot now with sufficient distinctness, but I can give 
you all the information hereafter. 

Question. State whether or not the rate of insurance was so great 
as to imply that the boat was unworthy. 

Answer. That was not the reason given to us at all; on the con¬ 
trary, they Avere Avilling to take the risk. They had no objection to 
the boat. The reason given to us Avas the uncertain state of the coun¬ 
try, the place she Avas going to at the time she Avas chartered, and 
they Avere umvilling to take the insurance upon loAver terms. 

Question. Where is the contract? 

AnsAver. At my office, and I Avill bring it here Avith Tompkins’s 
endorsement on it. 

Question. Who is Mr. Tompkins? 

Answer. He is United States quartermaster at this station. 

Question. Did he examine the steamer? 

AnsAver I do not know; I think the examination AA 7 as left to Capt. 
Comstock. 

Question. (By Mr. Fenton.) Of Avliom Avas this purchase made? 

Answer. It was made of Geo. W. Corlies, as agent of Margaret G. 
Coriies. 

Question. (By Mr. Fenton.) You said your security Avas an assign¬ 
ment of the boat by Stetson to Develin, a policy of insurance upon 
the boat, and the note of Mr. Stetson. What other parties Avere 
there, and what Avas the contract Avith them ? 

Answer. So far as I know there Avere no other parties. I took the 
charge and management of the boat on account of Mr. Stetson, in 
Avhose name she stood. He put the management of the boat in my 
hands. That is the usual Avay this kind of business is done.” 

M. M. Freeman & Co. held as security for the money they 
had advanced the insurance of $20,000 on the vessel, the notes of 
several other parties, and the contract Avith the government. The 


9 


contract with the government is not remarkable for disinterest¬ 
edness in promoting the national welfare, yet the government will 
certainly be satisfied with ordinary fairness and integrity in con¬ 
tracts made on its behalf, even if a willingness to seize upon the 
public misfortunes for personal aggrandizement is manifest in the 
transaction. While the republic has a right to expect, it cannot com- 
pell the unselfish devotion of its citizens. 

The provision that the government should pay $50,000 for a vessel 
just purchased for $18,000, in the event of her loss by a peril not cov¬ 
ered by the insurance, is totally indefensible. But the main provi¬ 
sion of the contract, while undoubtedly exorbitant, is less to be con¬ 
demned. The government was to pay $10,000 a month for the vessel, 
and that, too, for a period of not less than three months. Colonel 
Tompkins seems to have paid no attention to the time for which the 
vessel was chartered. The order of General Wool is silent on the 
subject. The presence of Captain Comstock at the time the proposi¬ 
tion was drawn up would justify the inference that the time (a very 
material feature in the contract) was adjusted between himself and 
Develin and Freeman, the other parties then present. 

There is some conflict in the evidence as to what would be a fair 
price for the charter of the vessel, and especially as to the cost of 
running her ; the latter inquiry is manifestly the most important in 
its practical results. 

Benjamin F. Woolsey, of Jersey City, an experienced ship chand¬ 
ler, testified as follows : 

“Question. Are you sufficiently acquainted with steamers to judge 
of her value ? 

Answer. I have built boats, and owned them. 

Question. What was the value of that boat when she was chartered 
in April last? 

Answer. I should think she was worth from $10,000 to $12,000. 
She had a pair of boilers upon her guard when new, and she was a 
boat which would cost, when new, from $27,000 to $30,000. 

Question. (By Mr. Holman.) She was built in 1844. Does your 
estimate of the cost of building her apply to that time, or what it 
would cost to build her now? 

Answer. It would not have cost more than that to build her within 
the last year or two. I do not believe I should have been willing to 
have given for her within the last two years over $10,000 or $12,000. 
I do not think that at the time of her construction she could have 
cost over $27,000 or $30,000. 

Question. What could you have chartered a vessel for at the time 
this was chartered which would have answered the purpose for which 
the Cataline was chartered, and could vessels of that kind have been 
found ? 

Answer. And the government insure her against loss? 

Question. Everything except such as would be covered by insur¬ 
ance, and the owners furnishing everything ? 


10 


Answer. I think a boat of that capacity could have been chartered 
for three months—and, indeed, I should have been willing to have 
furnished such a boat—for from $150 to $175 a day. If she was run 
all the time, and at high speed, it would make considerable difference. 

Question. (By Mr. Holman.) From the 20th to the 25th of April 
last were there a sufficient number of unemployed vessels about the 
city of New York, so that the government could have engaged vessels 
on reasonable terms ? 

Answer. There were a plenty of them, and they could have been 
chartered in the city of New York, to do the work the Cataline did, 
for $125 to $150 a day, and there would have been no difficulty in 
engaging such vessels. I think I would have been willing to enter 
into an arrangement to furnish a vessel to do the work she did, and 
run the number of miles she did, for $125 to $150 a day. Of course 
I do not know certainly the number of miles she run in a day. 

Question. (By Mr. Steele.) How many tons of coal would she con¬ 
sume in an hour? 

Answer. She would consume a half a ton an hour, at an ordinary 
rate of speed. 

Question. Will you state what hands she would need, and the price 
for which they could be obtained, and the other expenses of running 


the boat? 

Answer. 1 captain, (per month). $100 

1st mate. 45 

2d mate.. 25 

2 pilots. 100 

4 deck hands. 60 

No clerk needed. 

2 cooks. 30 

1 waiter. 12 

2 engineers • • •. . . 100 

4 firemen. 100 

Coal. 750 

Oil and wood. 75 

Provisions. 240 

Insurance. 180 


1,817 


She would not want more than four deck hands, at $15 a month. I 
have been in the habit of employing them, and have never paid more 
than that. A clerk would not be necessary. One waiter would be 
sufficient. Two dollars and a half a day would be sufficient for wood 
and oil; but little would be used. Eight dollars a day would feed 
the hands well. I cannot see that there would be any other expenses.” 

Isaac O. Phillips, who commanded the Cataline while she was in 
the employment of the government, testifies on the same point as 
follows: 


















11 


“ Question. You were employed as captain of the boat by Freeman 
& Co. ? 

Answer. I was, for so much a month; but afterwards he contracted 
with me to victual, coal, man, and run the boat for so much per 
month. 

Question. What did you contract with them to run the boat for, 
independent of your wages? 

Answer. My whole contract amounted to $3,100 a month, including 
my monthly wages. 

Question. Was the contract a written one? 

Answer. No, sir ; it was a verbal one, to victual, man, coal, and 
run the boat. 

Question. What did it cost you to run the boat? 

Answer. It cost nearly the whole of the amount I was to receive. 
I have not yet made up the whole account of my expenses. 

Question. When can you get it made up ? 

Answer. That depends upon the lawyer who has the matter in hand. 

Question. Did you have a clerk on board? 

Answer. No, sir; I acted as my own clerk. 

Question. Can you give the committee some idea of the items of 
the cost of running the boat ? 

Answer. Some days it was more than on others. The average 
daily consumption of coal was about twelve tons, and some days less. 

Question. Can you not give us a detailed statement of the actual cost ? 

Answer. 1 made up the statement once, and I think it was $2,800 
per month. 

Question. Had you any interest in the vessel ? 

Answer. No, sir. I referred entirely to the owners. I contracted 
with the owners to run the vessel myself. If I could save anything 
out of the contract, well and good; and if I could not I would only 
have my wages. I made a bargain in the first place for $300 a month 
for my services. Afterwards they wanted me to come to some under¬ 
standing as to expenses. The result was that I made a bargain to 
furnish everything for $3,100 a month, including my wages.” 

M. M. Freeman, in his evidence in reference to the cost of running 
the vessel, says : 

“ Question. Have you made an estimate of what it cost you to run 
the boat per month ? 

Answer. As well as I can judge, she cost us nearly $10,000 during 
the time we owned her. That includes the wear and tear upon the 


vessel. 

Question. How long was she in the service ? 

Answer. Two months and eight days. 

Question. Flow do you make out that amount? 

Answer. We paid Captain Phillips per month $3,100, 

making for the time about.. $7,000 00 

For commissions on the purchase, at 2J per 

cent., say. 500 00 

For commissions on disbursements. 200 00 





12 


For commissions on collecting insurance. $500 00 

For repairs, (estimated). 500 00 


8,700 00 


The commissions are our charges for doing the business. We get 
commissions for her purchase, and for all bills we pay for her. You 
readily see we cannot afford to advance $23,000 cash for seven per 
cent., and do all the work and business of the vessel in addition. As 
ship merchants, it is our business to charge commissions. 

Question. What sort of repairs had she ? 

Answer. I suppose the repairs will amount to $500 or $600. 

Question. Do you know that, or is it a general estimate? 

Answer. It is my general estimate.” 

Without making a deduction from this conflict of evidence, and for 
the purpose of avoiding an ex parte view of the case, giving full effect 
to the testimony of Mr. Freeman and his agent, Captain Phillips, the 
result would be that, after paying Captain Phillips $7,000 for running 
the vessel, (which, of course, includes the outfit,) during the time 
she w T as in the government service, and $500 for repairs, and there 
would remain of the $10,000, already received by the parties from the 
government, the sum of $2,500, on account of interest, insurance, 
commissions, and profit on capital of $18,000 to $20,000 for less than 
three months, and that not in peril. 

The parties place their own estimate on the value of the contract. 
M. M. Freeman & Co., who are regular ship merchants, and who 
advanced all the capital used in the venture, are to receive only one- 
tenth of the profits; while Stetson and Develin, who had only the good 
fortune to know the pressing wants of the government in advance of 
others, were to receive nine-tenths of the profits. But good faith on the 
part of the government is indispensable, and in fulfilling even its im¬ 
plied obligations, and applying the principles of equity to contracts 
with its citizens, the government of the United States has been of all 
nations the most liberal. Where a contract has been made in good 
faith it has been promptly carried out, though the terms may have 
been extravagant; yet where, at first blush, the amount to be paid 
for a given service is grossly exorbitant, that fact must be considered 
in determining whether or not the contract was made in good faith. 
The people, necessarily acting through agents, have a right to demand 
integrity on the part of those agents, and common fairness on the 
part of those who deal with them, and no contract made with the 
government ought to preclude an investigation into the terms of the 
contract and the fairness of its stipulations. And the circumstance 
of great national peril, involving the welfare of the whole people, 
compelling great haste and improvidence on the part of the agents of 
the government on the one hand, and furnishing an occasion for 
grasping mercenary peculation on the other, instead of furnishing an 
argument in favor of an unconscionable contract, should demand a 
more rigid scrutiny into its provisions, and when found unreasonably 
exorbitant the rules of severe equity should be applied. Especially 







13 


would this be right where the agent of the government has exhibited, 
either out of personal friendship or from an) r other cause, a partiality 
for the contracting party; or, while acting for such party, possessed 
with his knowledge the peculiar confidence of the government. And 
this principle, on the score of public integrity, should apply to con¬ 
tract, whether the amount involved is great or inconsiderable. 

Without wishing to question the integrity of Captain Comstock, 
the committee are compelled to observe that in this instance the 
agent, through whom the contract was made, possessed the confidence 
of, and would, indeed, seem to have been acting for, both the govern¬ 
ment and the contractors. By the order of General Wool, Captain 
Comstock would seem to be the part} 7 with whom the contract was to 
be made. “You will make a contract with Captain Comstock,’’ is 
the language of the order to Colonel Tompkins. He was implicitly 
trusted by Colonel Tompkins, who says: “ I had confidence in Captain 
Comstock, and told him I should depend on him to say whether it 
was all right in regard to the value of the boat,” &c. “ I told him 1 

had no time to examine the matter. I told him I relied upon him as 
to her value, as General Wool told me to take two boats from him. 
I knew he had been a steamboat captain of long standing, and 1 
relied exclusively on him.” On the other hand, Captain Comstock 
first examined this vessel in the presence of Mr. Morton immediately 
after the date of the order from General Wool. Mr. Morton calls 
the attention of Mr. Develin to the fact that such a vessel is needed 
by the government. Mr. Develin consults Captain Comstock as to 
the value of the vessel and the price the government would probably 
pay for her charter. Captain Comstock is present at the Astor House 
in private interview with Mr. Develin and Mr. Freeman, at the time 
the proposition to charter the vessel is drawn up, and where the 
length of service, price per month, and price of the vessel, if lost, 
are determined upon. The presence of Captain Comstock on such 
an occasion, and for such a purpose, can only be accounted for by the 
intimate relation of the parties. 

The information on which Mr. Develin acted must have come from 
some source. Mr. Freeman on this point, referring to the proposition 
to charter the vessel, says: 

“ Question. Was the proposition written in the presence of Captain 
Comstock, and there delivered to him? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. By whom was the proposition made as to the length of 
time this vessel should be chartered, or was that the result of a con¬ 
ference between yourself, Comstock, and Develin? 

Answer. The proposition was written by Develin, by my dictation. 

Question. What suggestion did Captain Comstock make upon the 
subject, if any? 

Answer. None than I am aware of. 

Question. As to the price of $10,000 a month, who suggested that 
sum ? 

Answer. Develin had told me previously that he thought she could 
be chartered for that sum. 


14 


Question. And when the proposition was drawn up, that sum was 
inserted, as a matter of course? 

Answer. It was a proposition we made to the government, as you 
will see by the terms of the contract. 

Question. But the $10,000 was mentioned in the proposition, as a 
matter of course, from the previous conversation between yourself 
and Develin ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did Captain Comstock make any suggestion upon the 
subject when that specific sum was named ? 

Answer. I think not. 

Question. Did he suggest it was too high or too low ? 

Answer. He made no suggestion about it, as I know. 

Question. When Develin told you it could be hired to the govern¬ 
ment for $10,000 a month, upon what did he tell you he based that 
opinion ? 

Answer. I do not remember that he gave me any basis for the 
opinion. 

Question. Did he mention the fact that he had had a conference 
with Captain Comstock upon that point? 

Answer. He may possibly have said he had been in treaty with 
Captain Comstock for her, and that he could get $10,000 a month for her. 

Question. What is your best recollection as to whether he told you 
that or not ? 

Answer. Develin certainly gave me assurances that he could get 
$10,000 a month for it. 

Question. What is your best recollection as to whether he predi¬ 
cated his opinion upon a conference which he may have had with 
Captain Comstock ? 

Answer. I do not know that I can give a statement upon a subject 
in reference to which I have no definite recollection. 

Question. But Captain Comstock’s name was mentioned in reference 
to the particular sum of $10,000? 

Answer. Captain Comstock’s name was mentioned in that conver¬ 
sation, and may have been mentioned in the way that Captain Corn- 
stock supposed he cou’d get it; but I have no recollection upon the 
subject. 

Question. For what purpose was Captain Comstock present when 
the proposition was drawn up ? 

Answer. To receive the proposition.” 

Taking the whole testimony together, it is impossible to consider 
Captain Comstock in any other light than the intimate and confiden¬ 
tial friend of the contractors, and at the same time trusted, and 
known to be trusted, by the government; in fact, the agent of both 
parties, and his acts equally open to the scrutiny of either. It is not 
a question of integrity on the. part of Captain Comstock, but of the 
obligation of absolute good faith and mutual fairness. 

There are some matters connected with the Cataline which the 
committee have found it impossible to explain, especially in regard 


15 


to the cargo with which she was intrusted on leaving the port of 
New York, and the manner in which her departure from that port 
was effected. The Cataline is said to have left New York for Annap¬ 
olis with supplies for the army. She was being loaded with these 
supplies before she was actually chartered to the government. 
Neither the quartermaster nor commissary’s department at New York, 
nor the Union Defence Committee, nor George D. Morgan, had any¬ 
thing to do with it. Was the cargo shipped on private account, or 
for the government? Was she loaded on private account and by 
some mode the cargo turned over to the government ? These ques¬ 
tions the committee have not been able to answer. They can only 
find the following evidence of a shipment on behalf of the govern¬ 
ment, in Major Eaton’s testimony : 

“New York, May 3, 1861. 

“Sir : Acting under your instructions to me under date of April 
21, 1861, 1 have purchased and shipped the following articles for the 
government by the conveyances named: 

“By steamer Cataline: 


25 boxes soap, 

6 bbls. dried beef tongues, 
25 casks Scotch ale, 

12 bbls. pickles, 

200 cheeses, 

35 quintals codfish, 

210 bbls. hard bread, 


600 hams, 

12 bbls. white beans, 

10 casks London porter, 

6 bbls. split peas, 

25 firkins good butter, 

300 boxes selected herring, 
18 head beef cattle. 


By steamer Roanoke : 

75 bbls. army mess pork, 1,365 bbls. pilot bread, 

73 bales blankets, 73 bbls. beans, 

200 bbls. ground coffee, 183 bbls. yellow sugar, 

235 J-boxes adamantine candles, 40 sacks Ashton salt, 

1,000 bushels potatoes, 48 bbls. super, flour, 

20 ^-chests tea, 32 cases palm leaf hats. 


By steamer Chesapeake: 

17 cases linen pantaloons, 435 bbls. pork, 

37 tierces hams, 111 head beef cattle. 


“And I have made some other purchases, of not large amount, a 
list of which 1 will forward to you when shipped, and a similar list 
will be sent to the quartermaster, commissary, and ordnance officers 
here. 

“I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

“A. CUMMINGS, 

“Agent of the War Department. 

“Hon. Simon Cameron, 

“ Secretary of War , Washington .” 


16 


It is probable that the articles in the above list were shipped by 
the Cataline. Some of them —the twenty-jive casks of Scotch ale and 
ten casks of London porter —look wonderfully like some private specu¬ 
lation; yet Mr. Alexander Cummings, the agent of the Secretary of 
War, testified as follows: 

“Question. Have you any knowledge of the loading of the steam¬ 
boat “ Cataline ?” 

Answer. Not a particle. 

Question. Have you heard anything upon the subject? 

Answer. I have heard what almost everybody has heard, but I 
know nothing of the matter. 

Question. If that vessel was loaded at this port for the govern¬ 
ment, from your knowledge of the transactions which were taking 
place at the time, by whom would she have been loaded ? 

Answer. 1 do not know.” 

Whether those articles were landed at Annapolis or not is uncer¬ 
tain. 

The manner in which the Cataline left the city of New York is 
equally difficult to explain. Mr. Barney, the collector of the port of 
New York, says : 

“ Question. State all that you know relative to the clearance of the 
steamer “ Cataline.” 

Answer. Application was made to me on Saturday morning, the 
27th day of April, by Charles A. Stetson, jr., who represented him¬ 
self to be the purchaser of the steamboat “Cataline,” with the papers 
in his hands to show the purchase, for a change in the marine papers 
and the issuing of new marine papers to him as the owner. The 
papers were issued to him. He also demanded the clearance of that 
vessel to Annapolis. I had understood previously that such a request 
would be made of me, and that it was for the purpose of carrying out 
provisions and stores for the soldiers. I asked him how she was 
loaded, and to whom the cargo belonged. He said she was loaded 
with flour and provisions, and that the cargo belonged to several of 
his friends. I told him I could not clear the vessel, and I refused to 
clear her. He then said the provisions were for the army. I replied 
that as the cargo was not government property, but property of in¬ 
dividuals, I could not clear her; that I had no request'from any 
government officer to clear her, and must refuse. He inquired what 
certificate or whose request I should require to give her a clearance. 

I said the certificate of the chairman of the Union Defence Committee 
that those stores were forwarded by the request of the committee for 
the government, or for the supply of the troops, and the request of 
the chairman of that committee to give her a clearance, would, 1 
thought, be sufficient to entitle her to a clearance. He asked me if 
such a certificate or request from some other party would not answer, 
and named several persons whose certificate and request he desired 
me to receive. 

Question. Whom did he name? 

Answer. Mr. Weed, Mr. Blatchford, and Mr. Draper. Told him 


17 


I should require the official certificate and request of the chairman of 
that committee. He went out, and soon after returned with a note 
from Mr. Weed stating that the cargo of this vessel, “ Cataline,” con¬ 
sisted of provisions and supplies for the troops, and requesting a 
clearance. I asked where Mr. Weed was, and said I would explain 
to him why I could not give the clearance. I went with Mr. Stetson, 
jr., to the Union Defence Committee’s room, where I found Mr. Weed. 
Showed him the note, and explained to him why I could not grant a 
clearance. He said it was all right; and, taking the note, said it 
would be arranged in some other way. After some conversation with 
General Dix, the chairman of the committee, I concluded not to give 
a clearance unless requested to do so by General Wool, as he was the 
commanding general of the army of the department of the east. I 
saw General Wool, and stated what had occurred, and requested him 
to be careful, and investigate every case before he requested me to 
give a clearance. Afterwards, and on the same day, Mr. Stetson 
brought me a written request for a clearance from two other persons. 
I said nothing would do but a request from General Wool, as I had 
told him before. He went away, saying he would get that request, 
but I did not see him afterwards. That was about 2 o’clock p. m. 
on Saturday. I heard nothing more, as I now recollect, about the 
“ Cataline,” until the next Monday morning after 9 o’clock, when I 
received a note from General Wool, saying that he had revoked the 
pass which he had given the day before to the “Cataline,” and re¬ 
questing me to detain her. 

Question. What do you mean by a pass, such as General Wool 
would give ? 

Answer. He would give a pass only*to a vessel owned or chartered 
by the government. All other vessels would require a clearance, 
unless they went under convoy of government vessels, and then they 
would have a pass. I sent the surve} r or immediately down to stop 
and detain the “Oataline,” but he reported that she had already 
gone to sea.” 

But the cargo, clearance, and ultimate loss of the Oataline do not 
necessarily enter into this investigation, and are only referred to to 
indicate the obscurity of the entire transaction. The committee, 
however, base their conclusions on the facts established by the 
evidence with reference to the charter of the vessel, and in consid¬ 
ering the whole evidence they are impelled to the conclusion that the 
vessel was chartered to the government at an unconscionable and 
exorbitant price; that Captain Comstock, by whom this was effected, 
while enjoying the peculiar confidence of the government , was acting for, 
and in concert with, the parties who chartered the vessel to the gov¬ 
ernment, and was in effect their agent—facts unquestionably known 
to the parties interested in the vessel, and certainly unknown to 
Colonel Tompkins; and that the sum of $10,000, already received by 
M. M. Freeman & Co., was a fair compensation for the use of the 
vessel while in the employment of the government. 


2 


18 


PURCHASING OF VESSELS. 

The exigencies of the public service have required the expenditure 
of a large sum of money in the purchuse and fitting out of vessels 
for the expeditions against the southern coast, and for the other new 
duties imposed by the rebellion. More than seventy vessels, of dif¬ 
ferent capacities and value, at a first cost of nearly $3,000,000, before 
fitting and furnishing them, respectively, for the peculiar service for 
which each was designed, were purchased by the government, in the 
single port of New York, in the short space of six or seven weeks. 

The dictates of a prudence and sagacity, such as characterize the 
most ordinary business transactions, would have required the employ¬ 
ment, in this most responsible duty, of the best talent and experience 
of the navy—of men who, by their professional experience, are pre¬ 
sumed to know what service is required of such vessels, and what 
particular ones, in a crowded market, would meet the exigency. 

' Such men would seem to be best fitted for a service of this character, 
from position and relation to the government itself, as well as from 
habits of mind, and the training of a whole life. They are so officially 
connected with the administration of public affairs as to be directly 
vesponsible to the most prompt and rigid military inquiry for any 
want of integrity or efficiency in the discharge of every duty devolved 
upon them. They have also in their keeping the honor and fame of 
the navy. Nothing in the past history or present character of that 
arm of the public service justifies the slightest distrust of its capacity 
to discharge, promptly and satisfactorily, every duty the times have 
exacted of it. Any just ground for cherishing such a distrust would 
peremptorily call for a re-organization of the department, and the 
injecting into it a new life, equal to the measure of demand which 
the public has a right to make upon it. The committee are happy 
to believe that no evidence of such a necessity exists. If, however, 
the emergency has been so great that the assistance of those having- 
no official connexion with, or responsibility to, the government, 
became an imperious necessity, the same dictates of prudence, and 
regard for the economy and efficiency of the service, would have 
required the department, in such case, to avail itself of the skill and 
experience of men who have fitted themselves, by service upon the 
sea, by the building or buying and selling of ships, to know of the 
character, capacity, and value of the various vessels offered to the 
government. 

The committee regret to find that these plain rules, governing all 
successful business transactions, have been disregarded, and that the 
public service has greatly suffered thereby. As early as the middle 
of May, the government being in want of two or three sailing ships 
for coaling purposes, and thinking that whaling vessels then out of 
employment and lying idle at the wharves in New Bedford could be 
advantageously purchased for that purpose, Commodore Breese, in 
command of the Brooklyn navy yard, upon the advice and recom¬ 
mendation of a highly patriotic citizen of New York, Mr. William 
H. Aspinwall, who, as well as the commodore, acted with entire good 


19 


faith in the matter, sent a New York broker, W. H. Starbuck, to 
New Bedford to purchase for the government two whale ships for the 
purpose indicated. He was furnished with funds by Mr. Aspinwall to 
the amount of $15,000, and instructed not to exceed that sum in the 
price paid for both ships. He proceeded to New Bedford and pur¬ 
chased, of Mr. George F. Barker, the ship “Roman” for $4,000. Mr. 
Barker testifies—see his testimony, page 345—that he sold Mr. Star- 
buck the “Roman,” at his own tea-table, in New Bedford, for $4,000 
cash, never having seen or known any other person in the transac¬ 
tion. The next morning Mr. Barker wrote a bill of sale of the vessel 
to Mr. Starbuck, who requested him to insert, instead of his own 
name, that of a friend, Mr. Henry J. Thomas, who then, for the first 
time, appeared in connexion with the “Roman.” This was done, 
and the name of Mr. Thomas thus appeared as that of purchaser, and 
his checks were given for the pay. The ship “William Badger”— 
see testimony of George B. Richmond, page 343—was purchased for 
$2,500, in a similar manner, by Starbuck, in the presence of Thomas, 
who accompanied him in this instance ; but the bill of sale was 
made out to Thomas, at the request of Starbuck, and Thomas gave 
his checks for the amount. From the testimony of the cashier of the 
bank on which these checks were drawn—Mr. E. Williams Hervey, 
see page 349—it appears that Starbuck placed to the credit of 
Thomas, in the same bank, sums corresponding to the checks thus 
drawn by Thomas in payment for the vessels, on the same day the 
checks were drawn; indeed, Thomas himself reluctantly confesses 
before the committee—see his testimony, pages 351-361—that Star- 
buck paid all the money for these ships, and that he had himself no 
interest in them. His language was, “I got all ray money; I am 
neither out nor in in the business.” He immediately transferred the 
ships in blank; yet, both Thomas and Starbuck made affidavit, at the 
Navy Department, that Thomas “sold to Starbuck the ship ‘ Roman’ 
for $7,400, and the ship ‘William Badger’ for $7,150, and that 
Thomas was the bona fide owner of said ships.” These remarkable 
affidavits are as follows: 

“I certify that on the eighteenth day of May, 1861, that I sold W. 
H. Starbuck, of the firm of Tappan & Starbuck, the ship “Roman,” 
for the sum of seven thousand four hundred dollars, and the ship 
“ Wm. Badger,” for the sum of seven thousand one hundred and fifty 
dollars, and I was the bona fide owner of both the said ships, having 
purchased them dismantled and fitted them up with rigging, sails, 
boats, &c., with my own money. 

The above sums were paid to me in conformity with receipts given 
at the time, gave him an agreement to allow him a commission of 
seven and one-half per cent, on the amount of the sale of the ships ; 
and to pay all the expenses of fitting the ships here and getting them 
to New York. 

I further certify that the said W. H. Starbuck acted only as a broker 
for the sale of said ships, and had no interest whatever in the busi¬ 
ness beyond the commissions. 

HENRY F. THOMAS.” 


20 


“ Commonwealth op Massachusetts, Bristol , ss: 

City of New Bedford, 

July 22, 1861. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me. 


WM. W. CRAPO, 

Notary Public 


“This is to certify that under authority from Commodore Breese to 
purchase two or three whaling vessels, intended for coal hulks, I went 
expressly on that business, and examined several, rejected the first 
selection as being unsound on being bored. 

I purchased of Henry F. Thomas the “William Badger,” for the 
sum of seven thousand one hundred and fifty dollars, and the ‘ ‘Ro¬ 
man/ ’ for the sum of seven thousand four hundred dollars : had no 
interest, director indirect, in the vessels, and have derived no benefit, 
direct or indirect, on the transaction beyond the usual commission of 
five per cent, on the sale to cover my expenses and trouble, in addi¬ 
tion to which a commission of two and one-half per cent, was paid for 
advancing the money, as the owner demanded cash on delivery of 
bills of sale. 

I had the above ships thoroughly examined and bored by W. L. 
Edwards, well known in New Bedford as a competent master car¬ 
penter. 

W. H. STARBUCK. 

Subscribed and sworn to, before me, this 23d day of July, 1861. 

ANDREW R. CULVER, 

Notary Public.” 


Upon these affidavits the government paid Starbuck $14,500 for 
these two ships, for which, while acting as the government agent, he 
paid only $6,500. He was paid in addition five per cent, commission 
upon $14,500 for his own services, and the additional commission of 
two and one-half per cent, upon the same sum for advancing the 
money. The committee would ask a comparison of these affidavits 
with the testimony before refered to, found on pages 341 to 361— 
and especially with that of Thomas himself, page 354—and confi¬ 
dently invoke the condemnation of the House upon the whole transac¬ 
tion. 

It is proper to state that, after this testimony was taken by the 
committee, it was by them laid before the United States district 
attorney in New York, and such steps were taken as resulted in 
the refunding by Starbuck to the government of $6,166 of the money 
thus obtained. The ships themselves were found, when delivered at 
the Brooklyn navy yard, totally unfit for the service for which they 



21 


were procured, and the government was again subjected to a further 
expense of several thousand dollars in repairs, and a delay of several 
weeks in their use. 

On the 8th of May last the purchasing of vessels for the Navy De¬ 
partment, at the port of New York, was taken from Commodore 
Breese, the commandant of the Brooklyn navy yard, and shortly 
after transferred to Mr. George D. Morgan, of New York, under an 
arrangement between him and the Secretary of the Navy of a most 
singular and extraordinary character, and one the committee feel 
called upon to pronounce most reprehensible in its nature and de¬ 
moralizing to the public service. 

Mr. Morgan had never had the slighest experience in the new and 
responsible duties which he was called upon to discharge, either in 
the naval service, the building or buying and selling of ships, or 
in any pursuit calling for a knowledge of their construction, capacity, 
or value, never having spent an hour in either. The department 
itself seemed to have so little confidence in the ability of Mr. Mor¬ 
gan to judge of the quality and fitness of the articles he was consti¬ 
tuted sole agent to buy, that it expressly enjoined upon him to rely 
in these particulars upon the judgment of three gentlemen of posi¬ 
tion in the navy, who were detailed for the special service of pro¬ 
tecting the government from mistakes in this regard by the new 
agent thus constituted. For everything which entered into the fit¬ 
ness or propriety of the purchase, the department fell back upon 
itself. 

The evidence was abundant before the committee that if it had 
been necessary to obtain the services of any gentleman outside of 
the navy itself, those gentlemen combining from experience and 
education the knowledge most calculated to fit them for this duty, 
independent of outside aid, could have been secured, without the 
slightest difficulty, for a, salary not exceeding $5,000 for the year. 
An intelligent ship-builder, B. F. Woolsey, page 288, testified as fol¬ 
lows : 

“Question. Do you know what Mr. Morgan’s business has been 
heretofore ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Do you know whether, up to that time, he had had any 
experience as a ship broker ? 

Answer. I never heard that he had any experience. 

Question. Would a person in the wholesale grocery business be 
likely to be a fit person to purchase ships ? 

Answer. I should think not. 

Question. Does it require experience in the management, or in the 
building, or in the furnishing of vessels, to fit a man to be a good 
purchaser of vessels ? 

Answer. I think it does. I think a person who wished-' to pur¬ 
chase a vessel for himself, and for a certain purpose, would give the 
vessel a different examination from what Mr. Morgan could be ex¬ 
pected to give vessels. I think he would fail to look at many points 
of a vessel which other persons, under different circumstances, would 


22 


look at. If I were to examine a vessel with a view to purchase for 
myself I should examine, perhaps, what he would not examine. I 
would examine the spars and rigging, as well as other things. I do 
not know but Mr. Morgan posts himself up through others. 

Question. What experience is necessary to qualify a man to be a 
proper person to intrust with the purchasing of vessels for the gov¬ 
ernment ? 

Answer. I should think one who is familiar with the building of 
vessels, and with the value of the materials entering into their con¬ 
struction, would be the best person to intrust with the purchasing of 
vessels. I do not know, if Mr. Morgan had a suitable person to rely 
upon, but that he would be as good a man as any one. 

Question. Without experience, and relying upon his own judg¬ 
ment, would he be a safe person to intrust with that business? 

Answer. If I wanted to purchase a vessel I would hardly like to 
rely upon his judgment. 

Question. Could a person be safely intrusted with that business 
without the experience to which you have referred ? 

Answer. I should think not. 

Question. Must not a person, in order to be a safe agent, either be 
himself qualified in that respect or procure persons who are quali¬ 
fied to aid him ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; 1 think, judging from what I have seen, if Mr. 
Morgan had persons of experience to report the facts to him, he would 
be a good person to buy vessels, as he makes a good bargain. 

Question. Could the services of persons in New York, qualified by 
such experience, have been obtained by the government? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Could they have been obtained upon a liberal salary? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What would have been a liberal salary to a person quali¬ 
fied by such experience to perform those duties ? 

Answer. I think competent men could have been obtained for 
$2,500 a year. 

Question. And at the same rate for a shorter period ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; at that time. 

Question. Would there have been any difficulty in the government 
availing itself of the best talent and experience for that duty at a 
salary of $2,500 a year? 

Answer. I think not. Perhaps ship-builders in New York would 
not think of entertaining such a proposition for less than $5,000 a 
year, but I could get persons equally as competent as they are at 
$2,500 a year. 

Question. Is there any necessity for the government paying any¬ 
body more than $5,000 a year for performing the duties which Mr. 
Morgan performs ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Was it difficult to obtain any such competent person in 
this city? [New York.] 

Answer. No, sir. I do not consider it difficult to obtain a pers'on 


23 


of that kind in this city at any time. I think the best services could 
be commanded for $5,000 a year, and perhaps you could get as com¬ 
petent men for $2,500. 

Question. Would there have been any difficulty in obtaining a man 
with all the qualifications of Mr. Morgan, and superadded thereto all 
the experience necessary to qualify him for those particular duties, 
for $5,000 a year? 

Answer. I think not.” 

Yet the whole duty of purchasing vessels for the navy at the port 
of New York was taken from Commodore Breese, commandant at the 
Brooklyn navy yard, and the other officers of the navy, and intrusted 
to Mr. Morgan. 

Although the committee have occasion, at this time, more particu¬ 
larly to call attention to the remarkable arrangement which existed 
between the Secretary of the Navy and Mr. Morgan, as to the com¬ 
pensation he was to receive for his services, they desire to notice, 
in passing, a single instance of deception practiced upon Mr. Morgan 
in the sale to him of a new vessel, the “Stars and Stripes,” which 
had been afloat less than two months. This vessel cost its owners 
but $35,600 to build her, had earned, under a charter to the United 
States, in that two months, $15,000 net, and was then sold to Mr. 
Morgan for $55,000, making a clear profit to her owners of $34,400. 
This was done by making Mr. Morgan believe that it cost $60,000 to 
build her. It is difficult to see how such a deception could have 
been practiced upon a man of the acknowledged business capacity 
and shrewdness of Mr. Morgan except that he had been called to a 
service in which he had had no experience and was ignorant, from 
any personal knowledge, of the cost of the article he was sent out to 
purchase. 

The committee quote from the testimony not only to show how 
easy it is to practice, even upon men otherwise shrewd, when dealing 
in matters of which they have no personal knowledge, but also to 
expose the shameful manner in which the character of members of 
Congress and other officials is traded upon. Mr. Benedict, one of 
the owners of the “Stars and Stripes,” testifies as follows, (p. 333:) 

“Question. Do you know anything about the steamer Stars and 
Stripes ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I was a stockholder and director in the com¬ 
pany that owned her. 

Question. What has become of her ? 

Answer. She was sold to the United States government. 

Question. For how much ? 

Answer. $55,000. 

Question. Through whom was the purchase made ? 

Answer. I cannot tell ; the business was done by the president of 
the company, C. S. Bushnell. He was the president of the New 
Haven Propeller Company, which owned the Stars and Stripes. 

Question. When was the sale made ? 

Answer. I cannot tell exactly. I think it must have been about 


24 


the last of July. The reason I think so is that the treasury notes in 
which we received our pay were dated the 6th of August 

Question. Had the Stars and Stripes been previously chartered to 
the government ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. For how much ? 

Answer. At $10,000 for thirty days ; and it was optional for the 
government to keep her or not at $9,000 a month after the expiration 
of that time. 

Question. What was the original cost of that boat ? 

Answer. About $35,000. 

Question. And how much was she sold for ? 

Answer. $55,000. We considered that we built her cheap. She 
was a very excellent vessel. 

Question. Who were the parties that made the negotiation with 
the president of your company? 

Answer. To tell the plain truth the company knew little about it. 
The president always declined to tell us much about it. 

Question. Did he account to the company for that amount ? 

Answer. No, sir. He attempted to charge $10,000 for selling the 
boat. The directors had several meetings in regard to it, and refused 
to allow the charge. Finally, all the stockholders were called together, 
and they allowed him $8,0*00. 

Question. Do you know whether all this amount of $8,000 went to 
Mr. Bushnell himself, or to him and some other persons? 

Answer. I do not know; he never w T ould tell us. He declined to 
let us know anything about it. 

Question. What idea had the directors in relation to the transac¬ 
tion ? 

Answer. The directors thought, at least, that it was a pretty heavy 
share. 

******** 

Question. He intimated that he had to pay large sums in Washing¬ 
ton to effect the sale ? 

Answer. He said distinctly that he did not himself get a copper of 
the $8,000. We did not like to believe it, but he asserted it over and 
over again. He said that his relations to the persons to whom he was 
obliged to pay this money were such that he could not and would 
not reveal their names. He finally so far succeeded in satisfying the 
stockholders that they agreed to pay him the $8,000. 

Question. After paying him that sum, your company received the 
$47,000 for the boat ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. With which the stockholders were very well satisfied? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. They would have been satisfied to have got $35,000 ? 

Answer. I think they would. 

Question. Do you think that vessel was worth, these times, more 
than thirty-five or thirty-six thousand dollars? 

Answer. I should think she was worth more than that. I think we 
built the vessel remarkably cheap. 


25 


Question. How old was she ? 

Answer. She was upon the stocks when she was chartered. We 
worked for the government about six weeks under the charter, and 
were to receive $10,000 for the first month, and $9,000 for the second, 
but we received only $9,300 for the first month. 

******** 

Question. What assistance did he represent that he was obliged to 
get? 

Answer. He stated to us that it was impossible to approach the 
heads of department at Washington without letters of introduction, 
and that it was necessary to get men of influence to approach them. 

Question. Did he represent that he was obliged to pay for letters 
of introduction? 

Answer. He said he was obliged to pay persons in Washington for 
their influence ? 

Question. More than one person? 

Answer. He spoke of persons. 

Question. Did he speak of having to pay for the influence of per¬ 
sons residing in Washington? 

Answer. No, sir ; he spoke as if they were members of Congress, 
or ex-members, or something of that kind, whom he paid for their in¬ 
fluence. I will not say positively whether he spoke of ex-members. 

Question. And he stated that he was obliged to pay out this entire 

$ 8 , 000 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; at least he stated that this two and a half per 
cent, to Morgan was to be taken out of it. 

Question. But beyond that he gave you no information to whom it 
was paid ? 

Answer. None whatever. 

Question. Upon what ground, then, did the stockholders, after he 
refused to give them that information, vote to allow him $8,000 ? 

Answer. He told them a long story about the matter. He satisfied 
them that he could not approach the government directly; that it was 
necessry to have assistance, and that in all probability he had spent 
this money. 

Question. If it was necessary to have help, how was it dishonor¬ 
able to disclose the names of the persons he was obliged to pay for 
their assistance ? 

Answer. Because his relations to those gentlemen were such that 
he could not do it. 

Question. Was it a secret influence that they were to exercise? 

Answer. I do not know what kind of influence was exercised. 

Question. Was it an agency which they were carrying on at Wash¬ 
ington among themselves? 

Answer. I do not know whether it was or not. 

Question. Did he represent that it was an influence brought to bear 
upon the Secretary of the Navy? 

Answer. I think it was his intention to represent that. 

Question. Did he represent that that influence was brought to bear 
from Hartford upon the Secretary of the Navy? 

Answer. No, sir; he did not. 


26 


Question. Do you mean to say that he gave you no clue as to the 
kind of influence which was brought to bear ? 

Answer. He represented to the company that sometimes—not in 
our case—certain members of Congress were in the habit of saying 
to the department, “ My constituents have a boat or something to 
sell, and I insist that you shall purchase that boat ,’’ &c. 

Question. And that that assistance it was necessary to pay for ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did he represent that the assistance which he was 
obliged to pay for was of that character? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. For procuring the assistance of members of Congress in 
behalf of their own constituents ? 

Answer. Yes, sir.” 

When Mr. Bushnell himself was called before the committee and 
put under oath, he told a story not less remarkable than that upon 
which he obtained $8,000 out of the company whose agent he was, 
but also totally at variance with it. 

The committee quote so much of the testimony of Bushnell as re¬ 
lates to the deception practiced by him upon Mr. Morgan, and also 
that portion wherein he was compelled to acquit the men upon whose 
reputation he had traded with his employers, (page 673 :) 

“Question. Did you tell Mr. Morgan how much the vessel cost? 

Answer. I did not. I told him that she would cost them $60,000. 
He might have understood me to say that she had cost $60,000. I 
told him she would cost that now. 

Question. What did you mean? 

Answer. Before I made the final trade I took the trouble to see 
how much she could be built for, and the lowest estimate was $60,000. 

Question. Then, when you told him that she would cost $60,000, 
you did not mean to say that was what she actually cost, but only 
that he could not get as good a vessel for less than $60,000. 

Answer. That was all. I meant that she was as good a vessel as 
he could get built for $60,000. 

Question. His inquiry of you as to what she cost was not an inquiry 
of your opinion as to what she could be replaced for ? 

Answer. I guess he asked me what she had cost. 

Question. And you responded by telling him what she would cost. 

Answer. That is it. 

Question. How did you mean to have him understand it? 

Answer. I meant to have him understand that she would cost 
$60,000. 

Question. When he asked wliat she did cost, did you understand 
that he asked what would be the cost of another vessel like her? 

Answer. 1 cannot say. 

Question. Did you really then deceive him? 

Answer. Not intentionally. I did not think that what she had cost 
was any of his business. 

Question. When he asked what the vessel had cost, why did you 


not answer him by telling him what she cost, or by telling him it was 
none of his business? 

Answer. I did not think of it. I gave him the first answer which 
came into my mind. 

Question. I submit to you whether that was a direct answer to his 
question ? 

Answer. I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong in the 
answer. 

Question. That is not an answer to my question. I ask you if that 
is a direct answer to my question ? 

Answer. It was the answer I gave him, but I cannot say that I 
think it was a direct answer. 

Question. Do you think it left a correct impression upon his mind? 

Answer. I do not know whether it left a correct impression, but I 
think it left a proper impression. 

Question. If it left the impression that the vessel cost $60,000, was 
it a correct impression? 

Answer. I did not intend to give him any such idea. I told him I 
could not afford to sell the vessel for less than $55,000. 

Question. When you found him trying to ascertain what the vessel 
cost, what was you trying to say to him ? 

Answer. I was trying to give him an impression of what she was 
worth. 

Question. Then you were not trying to give him an answer to his 
question ? 

Answer. I declare I do not know how to answer that question. I 
was trying to give him a correct idea of the value of the vessel. I 
built her when labor and materials were little more than half their 
present value. 

Question. Was the shipping business as good last summer as it is 
this summer? 

Answer. Yes, sir; much better; but I built her after South Carolina 
had raised the devil, and when the ship-builders all along our road 
left their ship frames up unfinished. 

Question. But that would not affect the answer to the question as 
to what she cost. 

Answer. I cannot see anything wrong in the answer. 

Question. Suppose you answer my question, which is, do you think 
that was a correct answer to his question? 

Answer. I cannot see anything wrong in the answer. 

Question. I do not ask you about the morality of the thing, I am 
only inquiring as to a question of fact. Did you give him a correct 
answer to his question? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I should say I did. 

Question. Then, when he asked you what the vessel cost, you think 
you answered correctly by saying that she would cost $60,000? 

Answer. I answered him according to Yankee phrase, that is, by 
telling him what she would cost. 

Question. Then your answer to my question is that you answered 
him according to Yankee phrase. 


28 


Answer. I answered him according to Yankee phrase. 

Question. I put the question to you so that you may have an oppor¬ 
tunity to answer it. When Mr. Morgan asked you what the vessel 
cost did you answer him correctly? 

Answer. I should say I did not give him an answer to that ques¬ 
tion. 

Question. The next question is, why did you not give him an 
answer ? 

Answer. Because I thought that was my business and not his. 

Question. Were you disposed to tell him the entire truth about the 
matter ? 

Answer. Yes, sir-ee. 

Question. Was it not the truth about the matter that she cost in 
the neighborhood of $40,000 instead of $60,000? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did you tell him that fact ? 

Answer. I should have told him if he had insisted on it. 

Question. Did you? 

Answer. I do not think anything more was said. 

Question. Do you not suppose he would have insisted upon it if he 
had not supposed he had already got an answer when you said she 
would cost $60,000; and do you not suppose he understood that he 
was buying for $55,000 a vessel which cost $60,000 ? 

Answer. Ido not know; I remember I said to him that she was 
entirely new, and that she was seven feet wider than the twenty- 
three gunboats which w T ere being built; that she was larger than the 
gunboats every way, and that I would sell her with boilers and ma¬ 
chinery complete for what the hull of a gunboat cost. 

Question. Then, if Mr. Morgan thought you told him that she cost 
$60,000, he is laboring under a mistake ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

******** 

Question. Did you sell that vessel to the government? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. At what price? 

Answer. At $55,000. 

Question. Where did you effect the sale? 

Answer. I offered her in Washington directly to the Secretary of 
the Navy, and a few days after my last offer to the Secretary of the 
Navy, Mr. George D. Morgan bought her of me on behalf of the gov¬ 
ernment. 

Question. Where were you when he effected the trade ? 

Answer. At Mr. Morgan’s office. 

Question. Where was the ship at the time ? 

Answer. She was at Washington or on her way home. 

Question. What personal examination did Mr. Morgan make of 
her? 

Answer. He went on board of her with Constructor Pook when 
she arrived here. 

Question. Before the trade was closed ? 

Answer. The negotiation was commenced two or three days after. 


29 

Question. Did you go to Washington more than once upon that 
business ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; half a dozen times upon that trade and others. 
Question. Were you there more than once upon that trade? 
Answer. I cannot say that I really went once upon that trade alone. 
Question. How many times did you come to New York upon that 
business ? 

Answer. I do not remember to have come more than two or three 
times. 

Question. Did anybody go with you to Washington to help you? 
Answer. Nobody. 

Question. Did no one help you when you got there? 

Answer. No, sir; not that I know of. I had no help. 

Question. Did you have any aid here ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. The trade was the result entirely of your own efforts. 
Answer. It was. 

Question. Exclusively so? 

Answer. So far as I know. 

Question. You had no aid of anybody else, did you? 

Answer. Not that I know of. i do not know that I can say that I 
had no aid at all, for I do not know but I had considerable, because 
I told half a dozen men in Washington that I wanted to sell the 
vessel. 

Question. You employed nobody. 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. Did you pay anybody anything ? 

Answer. Not a dollar. 

Question. Did you pay Mr. Morgan anything ? 

Answer. I paid him a commission. 

Question. How much ? 

Answer. Two and a half per cent.—the regular ship brokerage. 
Question. Was that all you paid out toward effecting the sale of 
the vessel ? 

Answer. Everything, except my personal expenses. 

Question. Is what you paid Mr. Morgan, and your expenses here 
and there, all you paid ? 

Answer. That is all. 

Question. And what you received, after deducting these sums, is 
net to the company or yourself? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. The remainder was the net proceeds of the ship ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. You had nobody’s aid in selling the vessel? 

Answer. I would not say I did not. 

Question. I mean aid, for which you paid? 

Answer. None whatever. 

Question. Did you not tell the company that you had to pay money 
to obtain influence to sell the ship ? 


30 

Answer. I told them it cost a great deal of money to go to and 
from Washington. 

Question. I ask you if you did not tell them that you spent a great 
deal of money to obtain the influence of political men to aid you in 
selling the vessel ? 

Answer. I do not recollect of saying any such thing. 

Question. Did you say anything that would lead to that inference ? 

Answer. Not that I recollect. 

Question. Did you not tell them that you had to pay sums of money 
for aid to procure the sale of the steamer ? 

Answer. I told them it cost sums of money. 

Question. Did you not tell them what I have said? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you tell them that there were men in Washington 
who made it their business to do such things, and that you could not 
get along without paying them ? 

Answer. I might and I might not; I have frequently said that. 

Question. Did you not tell them that, as an explanation of the 
reason why you charged them $8,000? 

Answer. I do not recollect of telling them any such thing as that ? 

Question. Did you not tell them that there were ex-members of 
Congress who were in the habit of charging for their influence, and 
that you were obliged to pay them ? 

Answer. I remember that a remark of that kind was made when 
the matter was under discussion. 

Question. What was the remark that did come up ? 

Answer. I think I made the remark that a Massachusetts ex-repre- 
sentative was in the habit of assisting his constituents and charging 
them a fair commission. I did not have an introduction to him. 

Question. What occasion had you to make that remark in connexion 
with the sum you charged? 

Answer. Because some of them thought I charged too much. 

Question. And as an explanation of that you made the remark ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What occasion had you to make an explanation if you 
had not paid a cent? 

Answer. I claimed to step into the position of an ex-member and 
effect the sale. 

Question. Was that the way you intended to be understood by 
those men—that you were charging for your great influence ? 

Answer. Yes, sir, and for my efforts. 

Question. Like the distinguished ex-member of Congress from Mas¬ 
sachusetts ? 

Answer. That is exactly it. 

Question. Did you speak of a distinguished ex-member of Congress 
from Ohio who was in the habit of doing that thing? 

Answer. I did not know of any such. 

Question. You simply illustrated the manner of your charging by 
alluding to the fact that there was a distinguished ex-member from 
Massachusetts who charged a commission for his services? 


31 


Answer. Yes, sir.” 

But it is to the arrangement between the Secretary of the Navy 
and Mr. Morgan, under which the compensation of this agent for the 
services thus rendered, the committee desire especially to call atten¬ 
tion in this connexion, as of a character, whether it be in the stipu¬ 
lated amount received or in the mode of payment, alike indefensible 
and reprehensible. That arrangement is a system of commissions, 
usually two and a half per cent, of the purchase money paid for each 
vessel, and one under which Mr. Morgan received, as compensation, 
during the period of seven weeks previous to the 6th day of Sep¬ 
tember, when this testimony was taken, the enormous sum of $51,584, 
as admitted by himself before the committee. When this testimony 
was taken, information of its extraordinary character and import 
was communicated to the department, in the hope that an abuse so 
glaring, when pointed out, might be corrected. Yet, notwith¬ 
standing the department became thus possessed of the information 
that its own agent was, by this system of commissions, amassing a 
private fortune, the committee have been surprised to learn from a 
recent communication from the Navy Department, furnishing them 
with the number and prices of vessels purchased by Mr. Morgan for 
the government since said 6th day of September, that the cost of those 
thus purchased by him amounts, in the aggregate, to the sum of 
$1,736,992. If he has received the same rate of compensation since 
as before that date, there must be added to the sum of $51,584, paid 
him before that date, the further compensation of $43,424 for services 
rendered since, making in all the sum of $95,008, paid to a single in¬ 
dividual for his services as agent of the government since the 15th 
day of July, a period of four and one-half months. 

Mr. Morgan insisted in his testimony and seemed to believe that 
this large compensation was received by him not from the govern¬ 
ment, but from those who sold their ships to the government, and was 
therefore justifiable. But the committee can admit neither the premi¬ 
ses of Mr. Morgan nor the conclusion he draws from them. In point 
of fact this large compensation was paid, in the end, out of the Treas¬ 
ury of the United States; but if it had been paid by those who dealt 
with the government, it would have been equally indefensible. No 
department of this government has the right to place its agents in a 
position, or clothe them with the power, under pretence of compen¬ 
sation for services rendered the government itself, to take from the 
pockets of patriotic citizens coming forward with their means to the 
support of the government in the day of its trial, such a sum of money 
as is here found to have been diverted into the pocket of Mr. Mor¬ 
gan. No citizen can justify any such attempt to convert the public 
necessities into an occasion for making private fortunes. If it be 
true that this agent of the government is paid by those who deal 
with it, the committee are at a loss to understand upon what princi¬ 
ple prevailing in business or morals the agent of one party is thus 
put in pay of the other party. It is worse than an absurdity ; it is 
directly demoralizing and injurious to the public service. 

But the pretence that this large amount ot money in the form of 


32 


compensation for services rendered the government, twice as great 
for two months as the President’s salary for a year, and as much for 
five months as the entire salary for a presidential term, was taken out 
of those who dealt with the government, and not out of the party for 
whom the services were rendered, so persistently urged in justifica¬ 
tion, has no foundation in fact. It is but so much added to the cost 
of the ships purchased, and has been paid out of the Treasury of the 
United States. It has been distributed in the form of a small com¬ 
mission over millions of dollars, and in some instances was scarcely 
perceptible ; but its presence was no less real, and its aggregation no 
less enormous. In form of words, as stated by Mr. Morgan in his 
testimony, the arrangement was this : He ivas employed by the Sec¬ 
retary of the Navy to perform this service, with the express stipula¬ 
tion that he was to receive no fixed salary to be paid him by the gov¬ 
ernment for the services he was to render it, but he was to charge a 
commission of two and a half per cent, on all his purchases—the 
usual New York brokerage. He was beforehand to inform and did 
inform every one with whom he dealt of this arrangement, and that 
his commission must be deducted from the amount paid for the ship, 
or, as Mr. Morgan preferred to state it, must be paid by them after 
the government had paid for the ship. In this way every one was 
notified before he fixed his price, that out of that price a given sum 
was to be deducted to pay the agent of the buyer ; that is, to the 
sum he was actually to receive for his ship, he must add the sum he 
is to pay the agent of the purchaser for buying it. It follows of ne¬ 
cessity that in bringing his mind to the lowest sum, he is willing to 
accept as an equivalent for his ship, he must add that which he is to 
pay back to the agent of the buyer, else he doesn’t get that equiva¬ 
lent. No amount of subtle reasoning, by which it is attempted to sus¬ 
tain this anomalous arrangement, can do away with this practical re¬ 
sult. If testimony were needed on this point it may be found in 
that given before the committee by many of those with whom Mr. 
Morgan dealt, though with some of them, in their anxiety to make 
sale of their vessels, a small commission seemed of little or no ac¬ 
count. The compensation paid to Mr. Morgan for the purchase of a 
single vessel, a negotiation of a few hours or days at most, sometimes 
amounted to more than $5,000. There was no seller, when asked 
the question, who failed to say that he would as soon have sold his 
ship to the government for $5,000 less, without commission, as to 
have sold it lor the price agreed upon and then paid that sum to Mr. 
Morgan. Mr. Woolsey, who sold him ships, testifies as follows, page 
292 : 

“Question. Who, in fact, pays the brokerage, by the mode which 
Mr. Morgan has adopted ? Does not the seller, in selling, take into 
consideration the amount he has to expend in selling the vessel ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I suppose he does in a measure. 

Question. Is not informing you beforehand that you would have to 
deduct two and a half per cent, commissions from the purchase money 
equivalent to informing you beforehand that you must add two and a 
half per cent, to your price? 


33 


Answer. That must be the effect of it. . 

Question. Then is not the government, in fact, paying two and a 
half per cent, more for these vessels than they would pay if they had 
employed a man at a fixed salary ? 

Answer. It appears so to me. I think I would have been just as 
willing to have sold my vessel to the government for two and a half 
per cent, less as I would to have sold it for what I did and pay two 
and a half per cent, to Mr. Morgan. 

Question. Is the transaction, in point of fact, anything less than 
the government paying Mr. Morgan two a half per cent, upon the 
purchase price of each one of those vessels ? 

Answer. I consider that it is just that. 

Question. When this information is given to the ship seller before¬ 
hand is it not the inevitable effect to put two and a half per cent, 
more upon the price of the vessel than would be put upon it if that 
percentage was not to be paid to Morgan ? 

Answer. I think such is the effect upon the seller.’ 7 

Indeed Mr. Morgan himself admits this to be the effect upon the 
seller when he states that, in very close cases, where he was trying to 
get a vessel as cheap as possible, he would, as an inducement to the 
seller, offer, in some instances, to give up his own commission in whole 
or in part. On pages 274-5 he thus unconsciously refutes the very 
argument upon which this strange arrangement has been made for 
the pay of a government agent. 

In one or two of my cases it, (the commission,) has been waived 
altogether. 

“ Question. What do you mean by that ? 

Answer. I mean to say that in some cases of the purchase of vessels 
by me, where the owner has asked what I thought to be a large price, 
and where the negotiation was a close one, I have, for the purpose of 
buying the vessel cheap, given up my commission to him. 

Question. Did your rule vary, and did you sometimes buy for larger 
commissions than at other times ? 

Answer. No, sir; but some persons are harder to buy of than 
others. 

Question. Did the commissions vary in the purchase of different 
vessels at the same price ? 

Answer. The usual ship commission is two and a half per cent., 
which is always paid by the seller. In the case of certain vessels which 
I was instructed to purchase, the price asked for which I considered 
to be very dear, I have been able to get off a very considerable deduc¬ 
tion by agreeing myself to make up a part of it. 

Question. That is, you saved the government the amount of your 
commissions. 

Answer. Yes, sir; and more than that.” 

Mr. Morgan had no responsibility for the disbursement of a single 
dollar on account of these purchases, for the parties and their papers 
were all referred to the department at Washington for examination, 


4 


3 


34 


ratification, and payment, the moment the price had been fixed. He 
executed no bond, and could claim compensation for no unusual 
responsibility or liability. 

It is no answer that, notwithstanding this exorbitant compensation, 
amounting in itself to a fortune, was paid to him, nevertheless his 
skill and sagacity have saved the government large sums in buying 
at very low prices. The department would have been entitled to the 
full benefit of all that skill and sagacity had he been employed, like 
other government officers, at a fair fixed salary. Such, as the testi¬ 
mony shows, would have commanded the best talent of the city of 
New York. A compensation at the rate of $300,000 a year was not 
necessary to secure fidelity. Besides, if the method of payment by 
commissions had any effect upon the agent, it is apparent that the 
higher the price paid for ships the greater the compensation. That 
system of payment to an agent, which makes his interest identical 
with that of the seller, and antagonistic with that of the government 
itself, whose agent he is, and which says in effect to him “pay 
$10,000 more than a ship is worth and $250 shall be the reward of 
your infidelity/’ has no foundation in either common sense or com¬ 
mon prudence. It is not believed that Mr. Morgan ever yielded to 
this temptation to which the vicious principle regulating his compen¬ 
sation exposed him. It is this principle, and the enormous private 
fortune it was adapted to secure out of a great public necessity, Avhich 
the committee feel called upon to condemn in the strongest terms— 
an arrangement entered into between the Secretary of the Navy and 
Mr. Morgan, by which the enormous sum of more than $95,000 
has been, by this indirection, taken from the treasury of the United 
States, and given as compensation to a single individual for services, 
which, however faithfully rendered, could have been secured for an 
amount insignificant in comparison with the sum actually taken. 

The committee do not find in this transaction the less to censure in 
the fact that this arrangement between the Secretary of the Navy 
and Mr. Morgan was one between brothers-in-law, a family arrange¬ 
ment which, in the opinion of the committee, reflects great discredit 
upon the public service. 

THE PURCHASE OF ARMS. 

The extraordinary demand for arms, resulting from the conspiracy 
to overthrow the Union, has resulted in extraordinary expenditures, 
and exciting the cupidity of large numbers of persons"both in Europe 
and America, has opened up a system of unprecedented speculation. 
The government has been the victim of more than one conspiracy, 
and remarkable combinations have been formed to rob the treasury. 
The profits from the sale of arms to the government have been 
enormous, and realized, too, in many instances, even by our own 
citizens, through a system of brokerage as unprincipled and dishonest, 
as unfriendly to the success and welfare of the nation, as the plottings 
of actual treason. The system adopted at an early moment for the 
purchase of arms naturally encouraged this result. The government 
and the several States entering the market in active and direct com¬ 
petition, stimulating, it is true, to some slight extent and temporarily 


35 


the importation and manufacture of arms, but scarcely compensating 
for a general profligacy in the expenditure of the public treasure, 
and the corruption of the public morals. 

Since the adjournment of the extra session of Congress, the War 
Department is understood to have authorized the several States, and 
to have recognized the right in the generals commanding the several 
divisions of the army, to purchase arms, to be paid for by the general 
government, creating an unwise and ruinous competition against itself, 
without increasing the number of arms in the market. 

The committee after examining into the effect of this system of 
competition, as early as the last of September called the attention of 
the War Department to the subject, and suggested as the only effec¬ 
tive remedy that the purchase of arms should be confined to a single 
bureau, and the several States notified that the general government 
would not pay for arms purchased in competition with itself. The 
committee is informed that this policy has been adopted, a most de¬ 
sirable result, though its earlier adoption would have saved millions 
to the treasury, and at the same time, by placing the arms purchased 
under the control of the government, would have secured their use at 
points where the public safety was the most in peril. On this sub¬ 
ject, Major Hagner, the experienced ordnance officer at New York 
city, who was engaged in the purchase and inspection of arms for 
the government, testified as follows in answer to the question whether 
the agents of the several States were aware of his being in New York 
city, as the agent of government for the purchase of arms : 

‘ ‘ The agents of General Fremont, of the governors of States, of 
cities, of Union Defence Committees, of colonels of regiments, and 
of generals of our army, are all here. I may be in treaty for arms, 
and the first thing I hear the arms are sold to some agent. Some 
men who hold arms, I sometimes think, are rather disposed not to 
have a bona fide sale. They like to keep the arms in the market in 
order to advance the price. I think they have been gambling in arms 
just as they do in stocks. 

Question. Has the War Department been aware of this state of 
things for the last two months ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I have repeated it to them, but their anxiety to 
get arms is so great that they seize every seeming chance that offers. 

Question. One single agent occupying, for instance, your position 
would of course, be able to make these purchases to the same extent 
that fifty agents could, to the extent of the capacity of the market, 
and at a price more satisfactory to the government ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; evidently. I have represented the state of things 
more than once to the department, and I have asked them to consti¬ 
tute a bureau of purchase, and I have begged that the States should 
be asked not to send agents to purchase. As the United States will 
have to pay eventually, I have asked that we should have some con¬ 
cert together, that this state of things might be stopped. 

Question. The number of the agencies does not increase the capacity 
of the market to produce arms? 

Answer. Not at all. 


36 


Question. Are not all the arms purchased for the government, or 
the various States, or for municipalities, purchased in this city? 

Answer. Yes, sir; they all belong here. If an officer is ordered to 
purchase in Boston, the first thing I know the arms that are here are 
telegraphed for to be sent to Boston; and so it is as to Philadelphia. 

Question. So that the whole of this business would be within the 
-control of a single agent of the government? 

Answer. Entirely so. 

Question. Upon a rough estimate of the purchases of arms by the 
government, by the States, by cities, what would have been the saving? 

Answer. Suppose we have now, Union defence men and all, half a 
million of men under arms. The United States owned at the time of 
the battle of Bull Run, not including those which fell into the hands 
of the south upon the breaking out of hostilities, probably 200,000 
arms—that would leave 300,000 more to be purchased. I think there 
Rave been very few purchases by States at less than $10 each, and the 
mass of purchases have been at a much higher rate. For Colt’s arms 
the government gave from $45 to $47, and for Sharpe’s arms from $35 
to $40. For Colt’s pistols I gave $19, and the chances are that if they 
were bought elsewhere, and not from first agencies, a higher price 
would have to be paid. Every mercantile agency insists upon the 
manufacturer giving him a certain part of his work, so that if the gov¬ 
ernment makes a bargain with the manufacturer it does not get all 
the arms of that establishment. I secure all those which come to the 
mercantile agencies and pay $19. The government, I think, gives 
$20 on account of their stricter inspection. Remington’s pistols cost 
$15, and Whitney’s $16 80. I think, therefore, that you ought to 
estimate that 300,000 arms multiplied by $12 J—the average cost say— 
would give the total expenditure of the government for that branch of 
.arms; and upon that I should think, as I said before, there might 
have been a saving of thirty or forty per cent. 

Question. What kind of an arm is it that cost so low a sum as to 
make the average cost only $12 50? 

Answer. Some foreign smooth bores and United States smooth bores. 
The government has bought but tew rifles. This difficulty found an 
exhausted market. The south had thoroughly sifted the country of 
all its arms, and we purchased everything which we could get.” 

It is presumed that, in view of the past experience, the government 
will adhere to its present policy, and that the several States will see 
the wisdom of permitting the general government to manage this 
department of the public service, in which competition cannot be 
beneficial to any State, because it is inevitably prejudicial to the gen¬ 
eral interest, in which the interest of every State is involved. 

The general government, and the government of the several States, 
must be impressed with the overwhelming necessity for the most rigid 
and severe economy in every department of the public service. 
Every avenue by which the government is plundered must be closed 
up. The people, who are making every sacrifice to sustain their gov¬ 
ernment, demand that the schemes and combinations of dishonest 
speculators to rob the treasury, under the miserable pretence of patri- 


37 


otism, shall be promptly crushed out. A dishonest scheme of specu¬ 
lation, based upon the necessities of the government, and an open 
assault on the integrity of the Union, are only different forms of 
treason—the former not the less base because it is masked under the 
pretence of a public service. 

In numerous cases which have come under the observation of the 
committee the price paid for arms was inexcusably exorbitant. In 
some instances the arms were worthless, and in others exorbitance 
in price was coupled with other evidence of a purpose to defraud the 
government. 

But the committee have not deemed it their duty to call the espe¬ 
cial attention of the House except to the following transactions : 

The purchase of the Austrian muskets. 

When General Fremont was in New York city, prior to his joining 
his command in the west, his attention was called to a lot of Austrian 
muskets, (25,000,) which were submitted to Major Hagner for inspec¬ 
tion, in reference to which he testifies as follows: 

“In relation to the purchase of arms by General Fremont I am 
entirely ignorant as to details. My own business has been so absorb¬ 
ing that I have not had a moment’s time to devote to an investigation 
of those transactions. Of my own knowledge, I know nothing of 
the prices paid by General Fremont. I know the character of a lot 
of arms which have gone out west to him. 

Question. Do you know of whom they were purchased ? 

Answer. They were purchased of a firm in Broadway by the name 
of Kruse, Drexel & Schmidt. The firm are dealers in other matters, 
but not in arms. The arms were assigned to that firm by some friend 
abroad, and the price was as low as one could hope to get arms for 
at all when they first came here. They were offered to me at that 
time—General Fremont was here then—and I think the price was 
$5 50. The arms were Austrian altered flint-lock muskets, requiring 
a special ammunition. The calibre was X W of an inch; but the prin¬ 
cipal objection to them was that they required this special ammuni¬ 
tion. The arms were old, and had been in service. The special am¬ 
munition is one that is mostly out of use, and the military men of our 
country and of France have objected to it on the ground that it re¬ 
quired percussion powder to be stored in magazines with the ordinary 
powder. The old flint pan in the Austrian arm was preserved. At 
first they took out the flint from the old hammer, and screwed in a 
nose of iron, which went down to the bottom of the pan, and there 
struck a tube which contained percussion powder; this tube was 
stuck into the old vent. The Austrians thus altered their arms at 
less expense than they could put in the percussion nipple. In these 
arms they had retained what we call the battery—it was the piece of 
plate which was struck against by the flint to make fire—and it still 
covered the old pan, and in it there was a piston which the hammer 
struck on top and forced down upon the priming tube. It was an 
arm of peculiar construction, which would require a special drill. 


38 


Question. Do you know whether those arms have been purchased 
since; and if so, by whom, and at what price? 

Answer. I have understood that those arms were sent out to St. 
Louis by Adams’s Express Company, upon order of General Fremont. 
From whom the purchase was made, what number, and at what price, 
I do not know. 

Question. They were offered to you at $5 50? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. How many were there ? 

Answer. Fremont at that time agreed that they were not a suitable 
arm for service. The man said he had twenty or thirty thousand, I 
do not remember which, and that he was expecting enough more to 
make up a complement of fifty thousand. 

Question. At the time when General Fremont was here was he 
advised of the price? 

Answer. I am not quite certain as to that. 

Question. Was there not something said in regard to the price? 

Answer. I think so, but I cannot state positively. A sample of 
them was in his possession at the Astor House. 1 said to him “Gen¬ 
eral, you see the trouble about these arms;” and, after explaining, 
he at once said, “They won’t answer.” When he reached Missouri 
he telegraphed back to me somewhat in thiswise: “Arms, arms, 
arms! send us arms—anything.” I had ordered.forward all that I 
could obtain—they were then on their way—and could not buy any 
more at the moment. Subsequently General Fremont telegraphed to 
me about supplies once or twice; but soon I heard of agents here 
purchasing for him. 

Question. As an ordnance officer yourself, and even with that de¬ 
spatch in your possession, you did not consider it right to purchase 
those arms? 

Answer. I did not. I understand that those arms are now at St. 
Louis, that they have not been issued, and that they are trying to 
alter them. Fremont found that they could not be used.” 

In reference to these arms, John C. Kruse, one of the consignees of 
them, testifies as follows: 

“ Question. Have you had any business in fire-arms ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I had a consignment of 25,000 muskets, which I 
sold to the government. 

Question. Were they consigned to you individually, or to your firm ? 

Answer. To our firm. 

Question. With whom did you make the bargain for their sale? 

Answer. With General Fremont. A sample was shown to him 
when he was here at the Astor House. He left, and Mr. Schmidt, 
my partner, went to Washington. In the meantime I got a despatch 
from General Fremont making an offer for half the lot. We tele¬ 
graphed to him that we would not sell them to him unless he would 
take the whole lot. I first asked $7 50 apiece. He said he would 
take 12,000 of them at $6 50. We telegraphed him that he might 
have the whole lot at that price. He replied that he would take 
them, and they were shipped immediately. 


39 

Question. Have you got your pay ? 

Answer. Not yet. 

Question. What kind of arms were they ? 

Answer. Plain Austrian muskets. 

Question. An altered musket? 

Answer. No, sir; a musket with a percussion lock. 

Question. Were they muskets which had been used ? 

Answer. Twelve thousand had been used, and 13,000 were new. 

Question. What was the invoice price to you? 

Answer. The old ones were invoiced at $2, and the new ones at 
$2 40, and the expenses.” 

These muskets, manifestly, are arms rejected from the Austrian 
service, and requiring an ammunition entirely different from that used 
in our service; were manifestly worthless in that condition; and press¬ 
ing as was the necessity for arms in the west, the committee have not 
been able to find that any of them are in the actual use of the army, 
although after reaching the St. Louis arsenal some of them were dis¬ 
tributed to the army. Captain Callender, the ordnance officer at St. 
Louis, was of the opinion that the arm was worth altering. One of 
them, altered and rifled by Miles Greenwood & Co., of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, at a cost of $4 50, and another by Messrs. Tyson & Co., of 
Philadelphia, at $6 50, was exhibited to the committee. They had 
been inspected by Captain Callender, and ten thousand of them were 
said to have been sent from St. Louis to the foundery of Greenwood 

Co., of Cincinnati, for alteration and rifling, at a cost of $4 50, or, 
as the committee were informed at Cincinnati, at a cost of $4 65 each. 
The policy of this expenditure, even in view of the pressing demand 
for arms, is exceedingly questionable. Captain Granger, of the third 
regiment of United States regular cavalry, now in command at the 
St. Louis arsenal, says: 

“ It is my opinion that the Austrian musket, as sent to the arsenal, is 
the most indifferent arm I have ever seen; as to the value of the arm 
I know not what to say, as that depends so much upon the necessity 
for them; it occurred to me, at the time I first examined the arm, 
that it was an old condemned and discarded arm; the arm which the 
government has been manufacturing for the last five years or longer 
is, in my opinion, worth all of these you could bring over the ocean; 
the combined arrangement of one of these Austrian muskets and its 
priming apparatus is one of the most clumsy I have ever seen; the 
primer, which comes with it, is an inconvenient arrangement; in 
appearance it is a bit of wire with a still smaller wire attached by a 
loop; the inconvenience of the arrangement is that they become tan¬ 
gled up, and the soldier in taking them out of the pocket or pouch 
would pull out half a dozen in all probability; and, furthermore, if 
their fingers were cold it would be a difficult matter to put the primer 
in its place, and it might take a minute or two. 

Question. Is there any difficulty in the fact that there must be a 
special ammunition, such as cannot be used with any other gun? 

Answer. There is, as the primer is not made in this country, but 
we have to send to Europe for them; I remember hearing Captain 


40 


Callender say, when these guns first came here, that he had got so 
many thousand muskets, but that they had forgot to send the primers; 
it is, in other respects, an awkward and clumsy gun, though pretty 
strong and pretty well made.’ 7 

It is probable that the arm had been rejected from the Austrian 
service and purchased on speculation, and sent to this country in view 
of the extraordinary demand for arms. The arm in the condition in 
which it was purchased will certainly never be used by our army, 
and when altered as proposed its inferiority to other arms which are 
rapidly accumulating, together with the almost universal prejudice of 
our soldiers to altered arms, will almost certainty exclude it from the 
army. The amount claimed for the arms, including the special am¬ 
munition, is about $166,000. The committee are of the opinion that 
the arm will never be of any service to the government, and will 
never be used except in some case of unforseen and extraordinary 
emergency. 

The purchase of the arm was an act of manifest improvidence, and 
the less excusable because the arm had been disapproved of, even at 
a less price than that paid b} T General Fremont, by the experienced 
ordnance officer at New York. The immediate necessity for arms 
can scarcely be considered as furnishing an excuse, for the arm was 
practically useless until altered, and to effect that, delay was inevita¬ 
ble; and the purchase was made without any examination as to the 
practicability of improvement by alteration. The committee found a 
large number of these arms at Cairo, and, notwithstanding the urgent 
necessity for arms at that point, whole regiments, even on the eve of 
the battle of Belmont, being almost destitute of arms, these arms were 
left in the boxes in which they were shipped from the arsenal at St. 
Louis. Improvidence and disregard of reasonable economy on the part 
of the agent of the government on the one hand, and a spirit of ruth¬ 
less speculation on the other, have made this contract, and it is a 
question of public justice how far it shall be carried into effect. The 
committee deem it their duty to present the facts for the considera¬ 
tion of the House without any special recommendation. 

The purchase of the Hall carbines. 

Another transaction in the purchase of arms, to which the attention 
of the committee has been directed, is the purchase of five thousand 
of Hall’s carbines by General Fremont, through Simon Stevens, of 
Pennsylvania. This transaction is, in some respects, of the same 
character with the purchase of the Austrian muskets, but much more 
remarkable in illustrating the improvidence of gentlemen prominently 
connected with the public service, the corrupt system of brokerage 
by which the treasury has been plundered, and* the prostitution of 
public confidence to purposes of individual aggrandizement. 

In the month of June last Arthur M. Eastman, of Manchester, 
New Hampshire, purchased of the Ordnance Bureau five thousand 
four hundred Hall’s carbines, at $3 50 each, and, after a slight altera* 
tion of the arms, at a cost of from 75 cents to $1 25 on each arm, sold 
five thousand of them to Simon Stevens for $12 50 each, who imme- 


41 


diately sold the entire lot to General Fremont for $22 each, General 
Fremont probably laboring under some misapprehension as to the na¬ 
ture of the purchase of the arms. The committee propose to present 
the transaction somewhat in detail. 

The sale of these arms by the War Department to Mr. Eastman, at a 
time when arms were in such extraordinary demand, is remarkable. 
Our government was purchasing, at high prices, arms rejected from 
the service of different European nations. If a general commanding 
a division of the army was at all excusable for purchasing twenty-five 
thousand muskets rejected from the Austrian service, at $6 50 each, 
on the ground “of a pressing necessity,’ 7 it is impossible to justify 
the sale of the Hall carbines, if they were of any value whatever, or 
capable of being made of any value by alteration. 

These arms seem to have been sold privately, and without inviting 
an^ competition, and sold, too, for an almost nominal price. The 
sale was made by order of the Secretary of War on the recommenda¬ 
tion cf the Ordnance Bureau. No government that ever has existed 
can sustain itself with such improvidence in the management of its 
affairs. One agent of the government sells these arms at $3 50 each, 
in the midst of a pressing demand for arms, and, a few weeks after¬ 
wards, and without any increase in that demand, the same arms, 
slightly altered, are re-sold to the government, through another 
agent, for $22 each, the government losing in so small a transaction, 
if permitted to be consummated, over ninety thousand dollars. Or, 
inasmuch as all the Hall carbines owned by the government were 
sold to Eastman, and of course embraced the 790 bought by Mr. 
Alexander Cummings, as the agent of the War Department, for $15 
each, the case as to these would stand thus: They are condemned 
and sold by the government at a merely nominal price; afterwards, 
in April last, an agent of the War Department purchases them for the 
government at $15 each; in June they are sold to Eastman by the 
War Department for $3 50 each, and in August they are purchased 
by General Fremont for the government at $22 each. Whether buy¬ 
ing or selling, the liberality of the government is equally striking 1 
General Ripley is a gentleman of large experience and inexorable in 
the performance of his public duties. The arm had been rejected 
from the public service as practically worthless years ago, and in his 
judgment no alteration could improve it; if so, the re-purchase of 
the arm is without any possible excuse; if otherwise, the original 
sale of the arm is utterly indefensible. 

It appears that Mr. Eastman suggested to General Ripley the 
alteration of the arm before he made the purchase. He testifies on 
that point as follows: 

“In June I knew that the government had a large lot of Hall’s car¬ 
bines on hand, which I understood were a very good arm. I made 
application to General Ripley to alter them so as to make them a 
modern fire-arm. 

Question. Is General Ripley at Washington? 

Answer. Yes, sir; at the head of the Ordnance Bureau. He de- 


42 


dined to have the alteration made; and then I proposed to buy them, 
and did so. 

Question. What alteration did you suggest to him ? 

Answer. The arms were made along at different times for a num¬ 
ber of years when breech-loading arms were adopted by the govern¬ 
ment merely on account of the convenience of loading at the breech. 
After that the new modern breech-loading fire-arm came up, 
wherein the chamber where the charge is inserted is larger than the 
barrel beyond it, thereby shutting off the escape of gas and getting a 
greater distance of range. I proposed to alter those arms in a similar 
way, so as to make them as efficient as the modern arm. General 
Ripley said that their experience was that when they altered anything 
they made it worse than it was before, and therefore he declined to 
have any alteration made. 

Question. Did you purchase the arms ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. About what time ? 

Answer. Some time in the month of June. 

Question. In what quantity? 

Answer. I purchased whatever the government had at the different 
arsenals—supposed to be about six thousand, but I have received 
only about five thousand four hundred. 

Question. What price did you pay, or agree to pay ? 

Answer. Three dollars and a half each, taking them as they were— 
good, bad, and indifferent, of every quality and condition. 

Question. Did you subsequently sell those carbines to the govern¬ 
ment or to other parties ? 

Answer. I sold them to an individual. 

Question. About what time ? 

Answer. In July. 

Question. To whom? 

Answer. Mr. Simon Stevens, of this city, was the chief negotiator.’ ’ 

In the judgment of the committee, under the circumstances, the 
arms ought not to have been sold. This, however, was a question of 
expediency. The committee does not doubt the integrity of purpose 
of General Ripley, but General Fremont was not, as a commanding 
general, authorized to purchase the arms.—(See act of February 8, 
1815, organizing the Ordnance department.) 

There is no evidence of a want of good faith on the part of Mr. 
Eastman, except an unfortunate eagerness to speculate on the misfor¬ 
tunes of the country. 

It is not entirely clear in what character Mr. Stevens made the pur¬ 
chase, whether for himself or for General Fremont for the use of the 
government. We deem that an important inquiry. Mr. Stevens 
made the purchase in person in New York city, and at once made the 
sale to the government. The sale to the government is thus stated 
by Mr. Stevens in his testimony before the committee: 

“ I have sold to General Fremont, for the United States government, 
<5,000 of North’s rifled carbines, made under Hall’s patent, at $22 each. 


43 


Question. Of whom did you procure those arms ? 

Answer. I got them from J. Pierpont Morgan, to send to General 
Fremont. 

Question. About what time was this? 

Answer. They were offered to General Fremont, by telegraph, in 
these words: 

“New York, August 5, 1861. 

“ I have 5,000 Hall’s rifled cast-steel carbines, breech-loading, new, 
at twenty-two dollars, government standard, t 5 0 8 q- bore. Can I hear 
from you? 

“SIMON STEVENS. 

“J. C. Fremont, 

Moj. Gen., Com 1 g Dept of the West , Cairo , III 11 

In reply to this offer I received the following despatch from Gene¬ 
ral Fremont: 


“Headquarters Western Department, 

11 St. Louis , Augusts, 1861. 

“I will take the whole 5,000 carbines. See agent Adams’ 
Express, and send by express; not fast freight. I will pay all extra 
charges. Send also ammunition. Devote yourself solely to that 
business to-day. 

“J. C. FREMONT, 

‘ ‘ Major General Commanding. 

“Simon Stevens, New Yorlc. 11 

Question. What understanding, if any, previous to this despatch 
which you sent to General Fremont, had you with him in reference to 
the purchase of arms? 

Answer. None whatever. 

Question. Were you personally acquainted with General Fremont? 

Answer. I was. 

The arms were placed under the control of J. Pierpont Morgan to 
secure him the payment of $20,000 he had advanced to Stevens. 
Mr. Hubbard, mentioned in the testimony, was acting as a broker in 
the transaction. It would seem that Mr. Stevens, on the 18th day 
of August, became, in an informal way, an aide-de-camp of General 
Fremont. In his testimony he says : 

Question. Were you acting aide-de-camp to General Fremont at 
this time? 

Answer. Yes, sir; from the 18th of August, under a verbal com¬ 
munication made to me by General Fremont’s private secretary, ten¬ 
dering me the position as aide-de-camp with the rank of major.” 

In his testimony Mr. Stevens disclaims having acted as an agent 
or officer of the government prior to the 18th of August, yet the evi¬ 
dence would lead to a different conclusion. Morris Ketcham, of New 
York, who had advanced money to Mr. Stevens, in connexion with 
J. Pierpont Morgan in this transaction, testifies as follows with ref¬ 
erence to the security he held for his advances : 


44 


“Question. How much did you advance? 

Answer. I should think between forty and fifty thousand dollars. 

Question. What security did you have? 

Answer. I had none except that which was held by Mr. Morgan, 
which was this authenticated document. 

Question. What constituted that document? 

Answer. A telegraphic despatch, and, I believe, a letter from Gen. 
Fremont to Mr. Stevens, directing him to buy a certain number of 
carbines, which he had offered to Fremont. In the first place, there 
was a telegraph from Mr. Stevens to Fremont, stating that he could, 
furnish him with so many arms; to which Fremont replied, ‘‘ Purchase 
and forward immediately.” 

Question. Were there any other documents? 

Answer. I think there was a letter also. 

Question. You advanced upon that draft, and hold those papers. 

Answer. Mr. Morgan holds subject to me, when he gets his pay 
from the government.” 

The terms of this brief despatch, “Purchase and forward imme¬ 
diately,” would seem to indicate the agency of Mr. Stevens. General 
Fremont manifestly understood from Mr. Stevens’s despatch that the 
arms were new and ready for delivery, when, in truth, at the time 
Stevens made the purchase, a part of these arms were still in the pos¬ 
session of the government and unpaid for, a fact of which he was 
necessarily informed, for he advanced the money to enable Eastman 
to obtain the arms from the government. Eastman in his evidence 
says: 

“Question. Did you receive any portion of the payment from Mr. 
Stevens prior to the transfer of the obligation you had from Stevens 
and other parties to Mr. Ketchum? 

Answer. The government would not allow me to take any of the 
arms at any one place, unless I paid for the whole before taking any. 
At this place there were 1,000 arms in one body, which required a 
large amount of money, and Mr. Stevens made an advance to make 
this purchase.” 

But the testimony of Major P. Y. Hagner, the ordnance officer, is 
still more definite as to the relations of Stevens to the government. 
In speaking of General Fremont’s agents in New York city, and in 
answer to the question, “Do you know the names of those agents?” 
Major Hagner said : 

“A Mr. Stevens was one of them. Adams’s Express Company 
told me that a Mr. Stevens had made a requisition upon them to 
send stores to General Fremont. Some time afterwards a gentleman 
introduced himself to me as Stevens, and said he was agent of General 
Fremont. I asked him if he had any credentials. He said he had, 
and would show them to me, and asked me if I had not heard of him. 
I told him then, and very plainly, that “I understood from the ex¬ 
press office that a Mr. Stevens had asked them to send things to Gen¬ 
eral Fremont, and that I had also heard from other sources that some - 
body claiming to be the agent for General Fremont had acknowledged 
or boasted that he had made a large amount of money by his agency. 


45 


I told him I cannot connect those two statements; but as you ask me 
if I had heard anything of you, you will understand that, having 
heard these two statements, which I cannot put together, 1 must see 
your authority before I can have any official communication with you. ’’ 
He had not the authority with him. He called at my office, and met 
me two or three times afterwards, but never showed me his authority. 
He has met me occasionally, and inquired about ordnance stores, &c., 
and I have always given him all information in my possession. Re¬ 
cently I said to him, “You come frequently to me for information 
upon military matters, and do you recollect that once you promised 
to show me your authority from General Fremont ?” He said he had 
not shown it to me, but that he had letters from General Fremont 
which he would show me, and he did show me letters of authority to 
him. He also showed me telegraphs. He stated that he designedly 
did not show me the authority, because I seemed to doubt his authority. 

I told him that I, as a public officer, had no objection to do what I 
could for the benefit of any other public officer, and if he would show 
me his commission from General Fremont I could deal with him freely, 
but that I could not now, though I had no objection to give him in¬ 
formation I possessed, in the expectation that it was for General 
Fremont. I said, ‘ ‘All I ask is that you show me your authority as 
agent, so that I may know that you are equally responsible with my¬ 
self for your conduct as a purchaser for the government.” Upon 
those terms he stood out.” 

And again : 

Major P. Y. Hagner recalled: 

“ Question. Are you acquainted with the Hall-North carbine which 
was altered by Marston under the direction of Mr. Stevens? 

Answer. I have seen the arnn. 

Question. After that gun is altered by Mr. Marston, what, in your 
opinion, is its value? 

Answer. Considering the emergency of the times, I should say ten 
or twelve dollars. 

Question. Why is it not worth as much as the government is pay¬ 
ing for the Enfield rifle ? 

Answer. The Enfield rifle has a longer barrel and a bayonet attached. 

Question. Have these carbines no bayonets? 

Answer. They have none ; the original cost of the arm was prob¬ 
ably more than twelve dollars, but I know they were sold by the 
government, as an arm of faulty construction, for much less. 

Question. What was the alteration to which they were subjected 
by Mr. Marston ? 

Answer. They were rifled, and the chamber at the breech en¬ 
larged, so that the ball would take the groove. 

Question. Do you know whether General Fremont had any per¬ 
sonal knowledge "of the character of those guns, or of their cost ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Have you had any interview with this Simon Stevens at 
Mr. Marston’s shop of late ? 


46 


Answer. On Friday last I was at Mr. Marston’s shop inspecting 
some arms he was engaged in rifling for me, and Mr. Stevens entered 
the office. We were talking of pistols which the agent of the State 
of Maine wanted when Mr. Stevens came in. After addressing me, 
he called upon Mr. Marston for one of those Hall-North carbines, 
which, he stated, had been spoiled in the rifling, but which would 
indicate the character of the work done upon the rifle by Mr. 
Marston. He had previously asked my opinion of the carbines. He 
then asked me what I thought was the value of them. I told him, 
as I have told the committee, I thought they were worth from ten to 
twelve dollars, and that as to my opinion of them, I had always liked 
the principle of the gun as a breech-loader—the advantage, in my 
mind, being that the cartridge is introduced in front of its seat in¬ 
stead of behind it. I stated, however, that the mechanism of the 
gun, and the old plan of loading it, had, no doubt, caused its rejec¬ 
tion as a breech-loader. Mr. Stevens then said he was very glad to 
hear my favorable opinion of it, and that he would ask the committee 
to call me before them to put my opinion in evidence. He then said, 
“Now, since you like these guns, major, Mr. Marston has three or 
four hundred of these arms, and he will sell them to you.” He 
turned to Mr. Marston and said, “What will you sell those three or 
four hundred you have to the major for.” I made no response to 
his first remark, nor did Marston. I kept my eye upon Marston, 
Stevens standing by his side, and I heard Stevens say in a whisper 
to Marston, after asking the question, “Say eighteen dollars—say 
eighteen,” repeating it twice. I waited a moment to see whether 
Marston would act in collusion with him, but finding that he did not, 
and that he took no notice of what he said, I turned to Stevens and 
told him I had heard his whisper, and that I considered he had acted 
very improperly as professing to me to be a government agent, 
charged with the interests of the government; and that in conse¬ 
quence of his conduct I should feel bound to have no further official 
communication whatever with him. I then walked off. Marston 
followed me, and said to me, in a tone indicating strong feeling upon 
the subject : “Major, I beg you let me say a word to you before you 
leave. Mr. Stevens had no right to use my name in any such con¬ 
nexion as he has done. I do not own the arms in the first place, and 
in the next place I have never had any improper connexion with any 
government sale. I have never received a bribe or present, but only 
fair wages for fair work. With whatever has occurred elsewhere I 
have had nothing to do.” 

Question. Did he say who was the owner of those guns? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. In what capacity did Mr. Stevens profess to be acting 
at that time ? 

Answer. His object in going there at that time, as he stated to 
Marston, was to get an arm for the purpose of bringing it before this 
committee. 

Question. Mr. Stevens had represented himself to you heretofore 
as acting in some official capacity for the government ? 


47 


Answer. On first introducing himself to me he stated that he was 
an agent of General Fremont. 

Question. When was that? 

Answer. I should judge it was in July some time. 

Question. Subsequent to that, and for how long a time, did he rep¬ 
resent himself as acting in that capacity ? 

Answer. The last time I saw him, prior to this, at Marston’s, he 
called at my hotel. He then told me he had been appointed upon 
General Fremont’s staff, and Avas to receive an appointment ; and he 
showed me a letter in which General Fremont addressed him as 
“Major Stevens.” 

Question. As early as July he had represented himself as acting 
as agent for Fremont ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. He stated, in the first place, that it \\ r as an 
unfixed kind of a thing. It was a remarkable state of circumstances, 
so far as ordinary military arrangements go, and I so stated to him. 
When he first spoke to me upon the subject he said he Avas buying 
things for General Fremont, and Avhen he had closed Avhat he AA r anted 
to say I said to him, ‘ ‘ This is all very irregular. If you are the au¬ 
thorized agent of Fremont I should have some assurance of it. I 
have no objection to giving you information as a private individual, 
but I can have no official intercourse unless you sIioaa^ me your cre¬ 
dentials.” But he never shoAved me his credentials. 

Question. Did he state the character of his credentials ? 

Answer. He stated that he A\ T as to be on General Fremont’s staff. 
That Avas in July.” 

The testimony of Captain Franklin D. Callender, ordnance officer 
at St. Louis arsenal, establishes the manner in which the transaction 
has been managed there, and the extent to Avhich payment has been 
made. 


“St. Louis, October 26 , 1861 . 

Franklin D. Callender recalled : 

Question. Did you have an intervieAv with Captain Turnley in re¬ 
gard to a transfer to your department of $100,000 in money from the 
quartermaster’s department in this city ? If so, state the whole of 
that transaction. 

AnsAver. As Avell as I remember, tAvo or three days before the ac¬ 
counts which Avere exhibited as paid in my testimony the other day, 
Mr. J. T. Howard, Avho seemed to be, at least, a friend of General 
Fremont’s, and at headquarters, came down to my office, and we Avent 
over to my quarters, as I thought Ave Avould be interrupted at my 
office. I 'think this account of J. Pierpont Morgan, referred to as 
paid in my testimony the other day, Avas made out by him at that 
time in A\ T riting. This I am not absolutely certain of, but such is my 
impression. I heard him say afterAAmrds that it AA T as made out from a 
draft of this amount of money, and, as Avell as I remember, I suppose 
I may have casually seen that draft, or I may have had it in my hands. 
I think the draft must have been signed by Mr. Stevens, but of that 


48 


I cannot be certain. I suppose the draft did not exhibit any charge 
for boxing or other charges, but was for the gross amount for the 
2,500 carbines. Some bill may have exhibited charges for cost of 
boxing or other charges. I may have suggested that the account 
should exhibit the gross amount charged to the carbines, but of that 
I am not certain. I had no funds available at that time to pay this 
account, which was $55,550 for the 2,500 carbines, as nearly as I re¬ 
member, and as appears by a copy which I have. A day or two after 
that I received a telegraphic express to report myself at the head¬ 
quarters of General Fremont. I went up there, and had an interview 
with Mr. Howard, and we went together down to Captain Turnley's 
quarters. Mr. Howard explained to me that, by the order or at the 
request of General Fremont, Captain Turnley would turn over to me 
$100,000, with a view to paying, as I understood, certain amounts 
for arms. We saw Captain Turnley, and he turned over to me 
$82,662 50, with which I paid the accounts referred to in my former 
testimony. Captain Turnley, as well as I remember, drew the checks 
for the amounts required, payable to my order, and I indorsed them. 

Question. Will you state the connexion in which the name of Mr. 
Stevens occurs in this transaction ? 

Answer. The draft was drawn by Mr. Stevens upon General Fre¬ 
mont, and the reason Howard gave me why he wanted that particular 
account paid was, that he did not want to have that draft go back 
protested, and the same reason may have applied to the other two 
accounts. 

Question. Who is J. T. Howard ? 

Answer. He is a gentleman whose acquaintance I made at General 
Fremont's headquarters. I think he represented himself as being a 
friend of General Fremont. 

Question. Was he at the headquarters of General Fremont for any 
considerable length of time? 

Answer. I think he must have been. I saw him there occasionally. 
He seemed to be interested in the arms which had been procured— 
not pecuniarily interested. 

Question. Did you know Stevens ? 

Answer. I met Stevens after these accounts were paid. He came 
down to the arsenal, and I saw him there ? 

Question. Did he refer to the subject o i Hu se arms? 

Answer. He referred to them, and had the boxes opened. 

Question. How many of Hall’s carbines were there in all ? 

Answer. 5,000. 

Question. On what day did it appear that they were purchased by 
the government, if purchased at all ? 

Answer. It appears, so far as I know, by the date, August 7, 1861. 

Question. Who purports to have sold them to the government? 

Answer. According to the best information I have, J. Pierpont 
Morgan sold them to the government. 

Question. Were they all included in one bill which was presented 
to you, or were there two bills? 


49 


Answer. I judge from these accounts that two different bills were 
presented, and that the arms were received at two different times. 

Question. Did not both bills bear the same date? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Upon what day was the bill for just 2,500 carbines, and 
nothing more, paid by you ? 

Answer. That bill was paid for by me on the 10th of September, 

Question. Was there an order attached to the bill for the 2,500 
carbines only, and were you directed by General Fremont to to pay? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Will you furnish a copy of that bill, with all the evidences 
of its correctness and payment ? 

Answer. I will.” It is as follows: 

Form No. 13. — The United States to J. Pierpont Morgan, Dr. 


August 7, 1861.—2, 500 Hall’s rifled carbines. $55,550 

o o o o c- o o o 0 o 


These arms have been duly received. 

F. D. CALLENDER, Captain Ordnance United States Army. 

Headquarters Western Department, 

St. Louis, September 9, 1861. 

The ordnance specified in the above account was purchased by my 
order for the troops under my command. Captain Callender, ordnance 
department, will pay the account. 

J. C. FREMONT, Major General , Commanding. 

September 9, 1861. 

Not paid for want of funds. 

F. D. CALLENDER, 

Captain Ordnance United States Army. 

Paid September 10, 1861. 

F. I). CALLENDER, Captain Ordnance. 

St. Louis, Missouri , September 10, 1861. 

Received from Captain F. D. Callender, of ordnance, fifty-five 
thousand five hundred and fifty dollars, in full of the above account. 
[Signed duplicates.] J. PIERPONT MORGAN, 

By his attorney, J. T. HOWARD. 

Question. Will you furnish a copy of the bill for the other 2,500 
carbines which have not yet been paid for ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it is here. 

Form No. 13. —The United States to J. Pierpont Morgan , Dr. 


1861. 

August 7 

Ordnance stores. 

2,500 Hall’s carbines, at $22. 

$55,000 00 


5,000 screwdrivers, at 25 cents... 

1,250 00 


5,000 wipers, at 20 cents.-. 

1,000 00 


500 spring vises, at 35 cents. 

175 00 


500 bullet-moulds, at 50 cents. 

125 packing box^s, at $4 .. 

250 00 


500 00 



58,175 00 


4 
















50 


I certify that the above account is correct and just, amounting to-dollars and — 

cents,-, 1861. 

The annexed-namcd ordnance stores have been received in good order. 

F. D. CALLENDER, Captain Ordnance United States Army. 


Headquarters Western Department, 

St. Louis , September 26, 1861. 

The above ordnance was purchased by me for the troops under my command. Captain 
Callender, ordnance department, will pay the account. 

September 26, 1861. 

Not paid for want of funds. 

F. L). CALLENDER, Captain Ordnance Uni'ei States Army. 

This copy I have furnished is as near a copy as I can give the com¬ 
mittee. It was taken merely as a memorandum to assist my 
recollection. 

Question. Who has possession of the original? 

Answer. I cannot tell; I suppose, of course, it must have gone to 
Mr. Morgan, or it may be in the hands of some agent for collection. 
Question. To whom did you deliver it? 

Answer. I cannot positively say, but most likely to Mr. Howard. 
Question. How did it happen that General Fremont’s name was 
not signed to the order of payment? 

Answer. The payment had-not been made, nor would it be paid 
until his order was attached to the order. 

Question. How does it happen that his name is not attached to the 
order ? 

Answer. I can only say that the account was put into this shape 
to get it into the process of adjustment, according, I suppose, to the 
wishes of General Fremont and those about him. 

Question. What conversation did you ever have with Mr. Stevens 
in relation to that last account for 2,500 carbines, and other articles 
therein named, amounting to $58,175? 

Answer. Mr. Stevens came to the arsenal and exhibited to me a 
letter from Captain Whiteley. That letter 1 have not been able to 
find. I understand the prices contained in that bill for the items of 
screwdrivers, vises, bullet-moulds, &c., were taken from prices named 
in that letter, and as the prices at which the government had origi¬ 
nally sold the same articles. Something was also said in the letter 
about boxes for which the government had made a certain charge. 
Those items were included in the account on the exhibition of that 
letter, and agreeably to the wishes of Mr. Stevens. 

Question. Then you saw Stevens before this account for $58,175 
was made out? 

Answer. I am not sure. I think it may have been partly made 
out, and that it still remained in my custody. 

Question. What interest did Stevens seem to have in the trans¬ 
action? 

Answer. I can hardly tell. I understood he was a member of 
General Fremont’s staff, and that he was making purchases by the 
general’s order.” 

The connexion of Mr. J. T. Howard with this business has not 




51 


been disclosed, nor does the reason clearly appear why General Fre¬ 
mont should so press the payment of the $55,550 to J. Pierpont 
Morgan tor the one-half of these guns, as to require for that purpose 
a diversion of funds from the quartermaster’s department, against 
which debts to the extent of millions were then pending and unpaid. 
Stevens seems to have drawn a draft on General Fremont for the 
money, which the General and his friend, Mr. J. T. Howard, did not 
wish to “go back protested.” If Stevens was acting as the agent of 
General Fremont the draft was all right. If J. Pierpont Morgan was 
the party actually selling the arms to the government, it would be 
difficult to explain Stvens’s connexion with the draft, except as the 
general’s agent. 

In the voucher for the payment of the $55,550, General Fremont 
certifies that the ordnance specified in the account was purchased by 
his order. This is only correct if Stevens made the purchase by 
order of General Fremont. If so, he cannot in person, or through 
J. Pierpont Morgan, become the seller of the same arms to the gov¬ 
ernment at an advanced price. Captain Callender could only account 
for Stevens’s connexion with the transaction, on the supposition “that 
he was making purchases by the general’s orders.” 

But in the judgment of the committee the most conclusive evidence 
that Stevens was acting on behalf of General Fremont, and of the 
corresponding confidence reposed in him, is to be found in the pur¬ 
chase itself. Stevens simply announces by his despatch the fact that 
he has 5,000 Hall’s carbines, at $22. “Can I hear from you?” 
This is answered by the general, promptly, the next day. There is no 
chaffering; no reference of the subject to the ordnance officer at New 
York, Major Hagner, or inquiry as to how Hall’s carbines should 
have got into the- market, or one word as to the condition of the arms, 
whether they had been altered or not; but General Fremont, as he 
well might have done if Stevens was his agent, without asking any 
explanation whatever, simply answers that he will take them. “Send 
also ammunition; devote yourself solely to that business to-day.” A 
very natural order if Stevens was acting as his agent; rather remark¬ 
able if he was not. 

From the whole evidence the committee is of the opinion that the 
arm was worth to the government, under the pressing urgency for 
arms, very nearly $12 50, the amount paid by Stevens to Eastman, 
amounting in the aggregate to $62,500, although Eastman, in his tes¬ 
timony, says he only received the sum of $57,COO. The government 
has paid Morgan $55,550. This sum seems to include one per cent, 
for interest, exchange, or commission. This would leave due from 
the government, of the price at which Eastman sold the arms to 
Stevens, $6,950, and interest accrued since the 9th of September. 
It will be seen that the items in the account for screwdrivers, nip¬ 
pers, &c., are for articles accompanying the carbines, in the sale by 
the government, for which an additional charge is made. Eastman 
does not seem to have received anything from Stevens for them, and 
the government ought not to be charged with them separately. Nor 
can the government in any just sense be held responsible for the mul- 


52 

tiplied commissions and divisions of profit to which this transaction 
has given rise. 

From these premises the committee is forced to the conclusion that 
no consideration of public faith will require or permit the govern¬ 
ment to pay for these arms a greater amount than was paid to Mr. 
Eastman in the original purchase. Two reasons, equally conclusive, 
sustain this view: the one drawn from the relation of Stevens to the 
government at the time the purchase was made; the other from the 
fact that a sound public policy requires good faith on the part of the 
citizen towards the government. 

The committee have presented the facts from which they infer that 
Stevens was acting on behalf of the government, and cannot, there¬ 
fore, be permitted to realize a profit out of the purchase. The ex¬ 
amination can hardly be regarded as ex parte, as full effect is given to 
the testimony of Stevens himself. But even if Stevens is to be 
regarded as an independent purchaser, that purchase was made with 
a view to an immediate re-sale to the government at an enormous 
profit, and the committee protest against such a transaction being 
treated as fair and legitimate. To drive a hard and unconscionable 
bargain with a party whose pressing necessities compelled compli¬ 
ance, has received the severest censure of the enlightened jurists of all 
nations; and an act which promotes the sordid and mercenary interests 
of the individual citizen at the expense of the common interest of 
the Commonwealth, has been branded by the laws of most civilized 
countries as a crime. To seize upon the pressing necessities of a 
nation, when the welfare of the whole people are in imminent peril, 
and the more patriotic are sacrificing life and fortune in the common 
cause, to gratify a voracious cupidity and coin money out of the com¬ 
mon grief, is a crime against the public safety, which a sound public 
policy must condemn. These transactions, where, in consequence of 
the urgent necessity of the occasion, or of the improvidence or dis¬ 
honesty of public agents, enormous and exorbitant profits are at¬ 
tempted to be wrested from the government, are not to be confounded 
with fair and legitimate contracts and commercial transactions. These 
are to be sacredly carried into effect, and the good faith which the 
government owes to its honest contractors, and, indeed, to the patri¬ 
otic masses of its people, demand the application of the most rigid 
rules of equity to the unconscionable and dishonest contracts by 
which enormous profits are sought to be obtained from the govern¬ 
ment by a system of brokerage unjust to fair and honest commerce, 
corrupting to public virtue, discouraging to patriotism, and a burning 
shame and hishonor to the country. Such, in the judgment of the 
committee, is the character of this transaction, where an effort is 
made to obtain from the government some $49,000 over and above 
the value of the property sold, and that, too, in a transaction in¬ 
volving property at the very best not exceeding $60,000 in value, 
and totally worthless if it were not for the necessities of the moment 
and the misfortunes of the country. The frequency of these trans¬ 
actions, instead of extenuating the offence, demands a more prompt 
and public condemnation. 


ARMY SUPPLIES. 


The act of Congress on the subject of advertising for supplies for 
the various departments of the government was designed to correct 
a great public evil—a system of corrupt favoritism in government 
contracts. To prevent the provisions of the act from operating pre¬ 
judicially to the government in cases of unforeseen emergency, the 
terms of the act are not of universal application; and the exception, 
permitting contracts to be made without advertising for proposals in 
cases where 4 4 immediate delivery ’ ’ is required by the “public exigency ,’ ’ 
has left the enforcement of the law to the option of the public officer 
on whose integrity the law is, in the main, dependent for its efficiency. 
If he would act corruptly, he will, under the exception, fail to invite 
competition. But the exception was necessary; and, at the beginning 
of the present national difficulties, the purchase of supplies at once, 
to meet the wants of an army suddenly brought into the field, was 
unavoidable. No sagacious foresight could, in the ordinary course 
of events, have guarded against it; and in judging the acts of public 
officers, in connexion with the questions of integrity and economy 
the extraordinary emergency must be considered. Yet the comit- 
tee are compelled to state that, either through corrupt motives, or 
from a want of reasonable prudence, the act of Congress has been 
almost a dead letter, even in tMt large class of cases where it might 
have been properly applied. Immense supplies, both in the Navy 
as well as the War Department, the necessity for which, in the ordi¬ 
nary course of things, was easily foreseen, have been purchased pri¬ 
vately, under contracts express or implied, without any competition 
being invited. Iii one important division of the army (the western) 
the law has been almost totally disregarded, and even the safeguard 
of the responsibility of public officers has in many cases been unne¬ 
cessarily removed by the employment of irresponsible agents in the 
purchase of large quantities of supplies, even where responsible and 
experienced and upright public officers were in a position to perform 
the required duty. A vast amount of supplies have been made on what 
is called 44 a requisition. 7 ’ In the western department, especially, 
“requisitions” have supplied the place of contracts, and were gen¬ 
erally in the following form: 

44 Headquarters Quartermaster’s Department, 

St. Louis , September 2, 1861. 

Messrs. Livingston, Bell & Co. will furnish quartermaster’s de¬ 
partment with— 

5,000 pairs cavalry boots. 5,000 suits infantry uniforms, 5,000 can¬ 
teens, 10,000 infantry hats, 10,000 army shoes, 10,000 army over¬ 
coats, 5,000 knapsacks, 10.000 pairs socks, 10,000 undershirts, (army 
pattern.) 

All to be made of the best army material, and conform to army 
regulations and requirements; the cost of manufacture, material, and 
transportation to be furnished to this department, upon which the 


54 


quartermaster will allow a fair mercantile profit to the contractors, 
Messrs. L., B. & Co. 

J. McKINSTRY, 

Major and Quartermaster. 

A true copy: 

H. W. G. Clements, Chief Cleric.” 

On such requisitions a single firm in St. Louis—the firm of Child, 
Pratt & Fox—furnished, from time to time, ordinary army supplies to 
the value of over $800,000, apparently without the price of a single 
article being previously determined. What is meant in these “re¬ 
quisitions” as “ a fair mercantile profit” may be judged of by the testL 
mony of Mr. James P. Coghan, the bookkeeper of the firm of Child, 
Pratt & Fox, who testified as follows: 

“Question. What would be the per cent, of profit on that sale of 
blankets ? 

Answer. About 40 per cent. 

Question. Would the profits on the remainder of the goods sold by 
Child, Pratt & Fox to the government be about the same as the 
profits on the goods mentioned in your testimony of yesterday and 
this morning ? 

Answer. I should think so. 

Again: 

Question. You have stated that in making up the cost of these 
articles, and in calculating the profits on them, you charged against 
them ten per cent, exchange; after having done that, you think the 
net profits of the firm of Child, Pratt & Fox would average 25 
per cent. ? If they should be paid in funds which were par here, 
would not their average profits then be 35 per cent. ? 

Answer. It would.” 

It is not necessary for the committee to say that such contracts are 
universally injurious to the government; opening up innumerable 
avenues for fraud, and not justifiable, to any extent, under any cir¬ 
cumstances; for even in time of war a reasonable foresight, such as 
is indispensable in a public officer, will anticipate, after the first 
emergency, the wants of the nation, and provide for them by open 
and honest competition. The failure to do so, whatever may be the 
intention of the officer, is, in general, a criminal neglect, the excep¬ 
tion being that indicated by the terms of the statute. The commit¬ 
tee would urge the importance of making the statute more definite, 
and leaving as little as possible to the discretion of the public officer; 
but in no event to permit an irresponsible agent to purchase supplies 
for the government. While the investigations of the committee 
have impressed them with the conviction that, with a few excep¬ 
tions, the quartermasters and commissaries in the regular employ¬ 
ment of the government as members of the old regular army, are 
gentlemen of ample and equal capacity and fidelity, and in the midst 
of our misfortunes have been ever jealous for the public welfare, the 
occasional and irresponsible agents employed by the departments to 


55 


purchase supplies have, either through want of experience or of 
integrity, sacrificed the public interests. 

It is proper to remark that in furnishing supplies in the western 
department the commanding general was peculiarly unfortunate in 
the character of the men by whom he was surrounded. The system 
of public plunder which pervaded that department was inaugurated 
at the very beginning, and followed up with untiring zeal; the public 
welfare as entirely overlooked and as effectually ignored as if the 
war was gotten up to enable a mammoth scheme of peculation, at the 
expense of the people, to be carried out. 

To illustrate the importance of system in the purchase of these sup 
plies, as well as the prudence of only employing the responsible agent 
of government in the execution of public trusts, instead of irrespon¬ 
sible temporary agents, through whom a system of favoritism could 
be consummated, the committee call the especial attention of the 
House to the purchase of supplies by Alexander Cummings, in the 
city of New York, under the direction of the Secretary of War. The 
purchase of these supplies, without advertising for competition, was 
clearly justifiable. But the failure to employ in this business an ex¬ 
perienced public officer furnishes a just ground of public complaint. 

These purchases were made on the spur of a pressing necessity, 
commencing about the 21st of April; but at that‘time there were in 
the city of New York, at the head of quartermaster and commissary 
departments, gentlemen familiar with every want of the army, familiar 
with the New York markets, and possessing every other advantage 
which years of experience could confer. Major Eaton, the assistant 
commissary general at New York, and Colonel Tompkins, the assist¬ 
ant quartermaster general, at the same cit} 7 , were fully entitled to the 
confidence of the government on the score of capacity, experience, in¬ 
tegrity, and patriotism. The legitimate duties of each of these gen¬ 
tlemen have, to some extent, been performed by persons entirely 
irresponsible to the government, and of, at least, limited experience, 
and, so far as the committee is informed, without any public necessity, 
for the heads of those departments at, New York have been fully able 
to meet any emergency. 

On the 21st of April Alexander Cummings, who for twelve years 
was the editor of the Evening Bulletin in Pennsylvania, and for the 
last eighteen months the publisher of a newspaper called “The 
World/ 7 in New York city, received two letters from Hon. Simon 
Cameron, Secretary of War; the one, apparently a private letter, is 
as follows: 


“April 21, 1861. 

Hear Sir: You will receive another letter from me with this. 

We shall need supplies to a very large amount sent here from New 
York, since the interruption to purchases in Baltimore. They will, 1 
think, much of them, have to come via Easton, Reading, Harrisburg, 
and the rest by sea, via Annapolis. I have called on Thomas A. Scott 
to take charge of the railroads, and I want you to assist the commis¬ 
saries and quartermasters in pushing forward their supplies, as well 
as in aiding them in making purchases at or from New York. 


We need men here without delay, and supplies should accompany 
them if possible. 

SIMON CAMERON. 

A. Cummings .’ 7 

The other, more official; after stating that the War Department 
needed an intelligent, experienced, and energetic man to assist in 
pushing forward troops and supplies, and calling his attention to the 
fact of his knowledge of the internal arrangements and connexions 
of the railroads in Pennsylvania, says: “With this view, I will thank 
you, in consultation with the officers of the army and navy, to assist 
in getting vessels, or arranging with the railroad companies for the 
accommodation of the troops as fast as they are ready to march to 
their destination, and also to assist them in making purchases or other 
arrangements, and to communicate at the earliest moment any infor¬ 
mation of service to this department.” 

Mr. Cummings called on Major Eaton, assistant commissary at New 
York, who did not require his services in his department, and on the 
24th of April General Wool, in an order, says: 

“Alexander Cummings will confer with Colonel Tompkins and 
Major Eaton, who will give such instructions as will enable Mr. Cum¬ 
mings to carry out the instructions of the Secretary of War. He will 
also confer with the “Union Defence Committee,” who will employ 
Mr. Cummings in the capacity and in the discharge of the duties as 
indicated in the same instructions.” 

No person but the Secretary of War seems to have been aware of 
Mr. Cummings’ peculiar fitness for so important a duty as the pur¬ 
chase of supplies, when great business experience and familiarity 
with the New York market, and army supplies in general, were in¬ 
dispensable; but on the preceding day, the 23d of April, two days 
after Cummings was instructed to co-operate with the officers of the 
government, the Secretary of War issued the following order: 

“Department of War, April 23, 1861. 

In consideration of the extraordinary emergencies which demand 
immediate and decisive measures for the preservation of the national 
capital and the defence of the national government, I hereby authorize 
Edwin I). Morgan, governor of the State of New York, and Alexan¬ 
der Cummings, now in the city of New York, to make all necessary 
arrangements for the transportation of troops and munitions of war in 
aid and assistance of the officers of the army of the United States 
until communication by mails and telegraph is completely re-estab¬ 
lished between the cities of Washington and New York. Either of 
them, in case of inability to consult with the other, may exercise the 
authority hereby given. 

SIMON CAMERON, 
Secretary of War . ’ ’ 

And on the 4th of May Governor Morgan issued the following 
order: 

“Albany, May 4, 1861. 

Duties at the capital preventing a personal exercise of the power 


57 


within conferred upon me, I delegate my portion thereof to George 
D. Morgan on April 26, 1861, being then, by telegraph, first apprised 
of this appointment. 

E. D. MORGAN.” 

George 1). Morgan was a relative and business partner of Governor 
Morgan, residing in New York city. Governor Morgan seems to have 
regarded this extraordinary appointment as a franchise, subject to be 
transferred at pleasure. Under this authority. George D. Morgan 
purchased articles to the value of from $15,000 to $25,000, which 
were paid for. as a part of his own purchases, by Cummings; and here 
George D. Morgan’s operations under this order terminated, and 
Cummings after this exercised alone the power conferred. 

In connexion with the appointment of Morgan and Cummings to 
make these purchases, the Secretaries of War and of the Treasury, as 
is stated by Mr. Cummings in his testimony, placed in the hands of 
General Dix,Mr. Opdyke,and Mr. Blatchford, of New York, $2,000,000. 
This large sum of money was subject to the order of Messrs. Morgan 
and Cummings, or either of them.—(See page 391.) Messrs. Dix, 
Opdyke, and Blatchford, were distinguished citizens of New York and 
prominent members of the Union Defence Committee. But, singular 
enough, while these $2,000,000 are apparently placed under the safe¬ 
guard of these well-known citizens, and indeed left under the custody 
of the United States sub-treasurer at New York, it was in effect placed 
at the entire disposal of Messrs. Morgan and Cummings, or of either 
of them, by the Secretary of War. On that point Cummings testifies 
as follows: 

“Question. How did the second letter differ from the first? 

Answer. As near as I can remember it, it gave Governor Morgan 
and myself authority directly to act, and simultaneously with that au¬ 
thority there was a fund placed in the hands of Mr. Opdyke, General 
Dix, and Mr. Blatchford. 

Question. From whom did you obtain that authority? 

Answer. From the War Department. 

Question. What were you and Governor Morgan authorized to do? 

Answer. It authorized us to draw upon the funds in those gentle¬ 
men’s hands. 

Question. By whom was the fund placed in those gentlemen’s hands ? 

Answer. By the Secretary of the Treasury and by the Secretary of 
War, jointly, I think. 

Question. But it was placed there subject to your order? 

Answer. Subject to our joint order, or to the order of either of us, 
I think. Either of us was authorized to act in the absence of the 
other.” 

So that Messrs. Dix, Opdyke, and Blatchford were mere treasurers, 
holding funds subject to the order of Alexander Cummings. It is 
true that Cummings says that the committee (Dix, Opdyke, and Blatch¬ 
ford) made purchases,chartered vessels, Ac.,to the amount of $90,000; 
yet he says that even where they made purchases, he had to make 
requisitions on them for the money to pay with.—(Page 392.) 

Within a few days after Cummings was invested with this authority, 


58 


he drew from the committee, through the sub-treasurer, Mr. Cisco, 
at New York, $250,000, $90,000 of which, as Cummings insists, was 
applied to pay for the purchases made by the committee itself, or by 
Mr. Blatchford, a member of it, and the residue, $160,000, he placed 
to his own credit at the Park Bank, of New York city, and he states 
in his evidence that he made purchases for the government to the 
amount of $160,000. 

Mr. Cummings employed a clerk, Mr. James Humphrey, and ex¬ 
hibited in that, as in most other transactions, a confiding disposition 
hardly consistent with a thorough business man engaged in public 
duty. He testifies in reference to his clerk as follows: 

“ Question. Had you any other clerk than James Humphrey? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Is he a resident of this city? 

Answer. Not now; but he was here then. 

Question. Where did you find him? 

Answer. He was recommended to me. 

Question. By whom? 

Answer. I cannot state. 

Question. Do you know what his position was previous to that 
time ? 

Answer. I think he was recommended to me by Mr. Thurlow Weed, 
but I am not sure. 

Question. Do you know what his previous business was? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Do you know where he had been in business? 

Answer. I do not know whether it was here or in Albany. 

Question. Did you ascertain whether he had been in business here 
or in Albany ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you, before you employed him, ascertain anything 
about him ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I remember now that Mr. Weed told me he knew 
all about him. and upon his recommendation I took him. 

Question. What did he tell you in reference to the experience of 
this man ? 

Answer. He only told me he was entirely competent and reliable. 

Question. Did you ask him what the man had been doing ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you know when you employed him whether he had 
been a bookkeeper or a lawyer? 

Answer. No, sir; I relied upon the statement of Weed that he was 
reliable. ?? 

This clerk was authorized to make purchases. 

Mr. Cummings acted in this extraordinary character for about 
fifteen days. The $90,000 was paid to Mr. Blatchford, or to the com¬ 
mittee with which he was acting, by Mr. Cummings without any 
examination into the character of the expenditures, either by himself 
or anybody else. In reference to his drawing in their favor for the 
$90,000. He testifies as follows: 


59 


“Question. Can you give me any account of their proceedings for 
which you thus drew requisitions upon them to credit themselves 
with ? 

Answer. I cannot, but their vouchers arc all prepared and will 
show for themselves. 

Question. Have you the vouchers ? 

Answer. No, sir; Mr. Blatchford has them. 

Question. He has the vouchers upon which you authorized him to 
pass to his own credit money in his own hands ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I understand that the committee has them, and 
Blatchford was the acting man. 

Mr. Cummings seems to have expended the $160,000 placed to his 
own credit in the Park Bank according to his own fancy. He says 
he expended about $25,000 in clothing, and on that point says 

Question. Of whom did you purchase clothing? 

Answer. I cannot recall the names now. They were nearly all 
strangers to me. I will produce the vouchers. 

Question. Did you purchase the clothing in the market ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I called to my assistance a clerk, through whom 
I purchased what I could. 

Question. What were the clothes, full suits ? 

Answer. No, sir. There were two items which covered the larger 
part of the purchase—pantaloons and hats. 

Question. What did you do with them? 

Answer. I forwarded them to Annapolis. 

Question. On what requisition did you purchase hats and panta¬ 
loons ? 

Answer. No requisition. 

Question. How came you to purchase hats and pantaloons rather 
than anything else? 

Answer. Because I thought they would be needed, as hot weather 
was coming on. I had seen the soldiers pass through here with warm 
winter clothing, which I believed they could not endure when warm 
weather should come on. 

Question. Then you were guided by your own information and 
judgment as to what would be needed at Washington ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Had you any other guide ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Had you any limits imposed upon your actions except 
such as were imposed by your own discretion ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. You purchased such kind, quality, and amount as was 
dictated by your own judgment solely ? 

Answer. Yes, sir .’’ 

The clothing ivas linen 'pantaloons and straw hats to the amount of over 
$21,000. Again, on this subject, Mr. Cummings says: 

“Question. Did you consult with any authority as to the propriety 
of introducing linen pantaloons into the army ? 


GO 


Answer. Not until after it was done. After it was done I talked 
with Major Sibley, and he said that was not in accordance with the 
army regulation; but then I had ceased to purchase.” 

Mr. Cummings purchased provisions and groceries. On this sub¬ 
ject he says: 

“Question. Can you give me the name of any firm of whom you 
purchased any of those groceries or provisions ? 

Answer. I think some supplies were purchased of Corning & Co., 
of Albany. 

Question. Do you know what they were? 

Answer. I think they were provisions. 

Question. Did you go to Albany to see the firm ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. With whom did you do the business? 

Answer. With Mr. Davidson, a member of the firm. 

Question. Where did you see him ? 

Answer. At the Astor House. 

Question. What was the nature of the supplies you purchased of 
that firm? 

Answer. They were provisions. 

Question. Did you ascertain from him beforehand as to his famil¬ 
iarity with that branch of business ? 

Answer. I supposed he knew all about it. 

Question. The provisions were of the kind in which he dealt ? 
Answer. I supposed so. 

Question. Did you seek him out ? 

Answer. I met him at the Astor House. 

Question. Did you seek him out for this purpose ? 

Answer. No, sir; he came to me. 

Question. Then Davidson came to you and proposed to sell you 
something which you now think was some kind of provisions? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What was the amount of that bill ? 

Answer. I do not remember. The vouchers will show. 

Question. Was it large or small? 

Answer. It amounted to several thousands of dollars. 

Question. Would it exceed or fall short of $10,000? 

Answer. I cannot say. The bill will show for itself. 

Question. Did you see the articles? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. How were they furnished ? 

Answer. By him; and put on board of the vessel. 

Question. What knowledge had you of the quality of the articles 
furnished ? 

Answer. I could not have much knowledge of it. That was out of 
question. 

Question. Did you employ any gentleman to see the articles? 
Answer. Only my clerk, Mr. Humphreys. 

Question. Were those articles brought from Albany here and 
shipped? 


61 


Answer. I suppose so. 

Question. Were they in Albany when you made the purchase? 
Answer. I suppose so. 

Question. Had you any absolute knowledge upon that point? 
Answer. No. sir. 

Question. What was Davidson’s statement to you in reference to 
that thing ? 

Answer. That he was familiar with that kind of business—that he 
knew the value of the articles of which the government were in need. 
Question. What business did he say he was familiar with ? 

Answer. I think, the purchasing of supplies and provisions. 
Question. With what branch of the supplies you were then pur¬ 
chasing did he say he was familiar with? 

Answer. Mainly beef and pork, I think. 

Question. Did he tell you he was of the firm of E. Corning & Co.? 
Answer. I assumed that. 

Question. Had you knowledge then of the particular business in 
which E. Corning & Co. were engaged? 

Answer. No, sir; except as dealers in produce. 

Question. Then you relied entirely on his own statement? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And whether the firm was engaged in the provision 
business you did not know ? 

Answer. That was my impression. 

The firm of E. Corning & Co. were a firm, not in the grocery and 
produce but in the hardware business, in Albany, New York. Mr. 
Cummings was probably imposed on from his want of general busi¬ 
ness experience. 

Again : 

Question. What was the next considerable item of your purchases ? 
Answer. Hard bread. 

Question. And what amount of that did you purchase? 

Answer. I do not now remember the precise amount. 

Question. Did you purchase it personally ? 

Answer. My clerk purchased it. 

Question. From whom ? 

Answer. From a house in Boston, I think. 

Question. Did you have any personal knowledge of that transac¬ 
tion? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you furnish the clerk with the funds, or did you 
draw in favor of the seller ? 

Answer. It was paid for after it arrived here. 

Question. Paid to whom? 

Answer. Directly to the party selling, I suppose. 

Question. By you ? 

Answer. By my clerk, I suppose. 

Question. What was your own personal connexion with the trans¬ 
action ? , . 

Answer. Nothing further than that I ordered the purchase to be 


62 


made and the article to be shipped. I was spoken to about the sub¬ 
ject first, and it was thought to be wise to make the purchase. 77 

Mr. Cummings also chartered vessels. He testifies, with reference 
to the charter of the Coatzacoalcos, as follows: 

“Question. With whom did you make the contract? 

Answer. With Mr. Roberts, the owner. 

Question. Did you make a personal examination of her? 

Answer. I had previously been upon her. 

Question. Did you invoke the aid of anybody else in making this 
contract with Mr. Roberts ? 

Answer. I think not, specially. 

Question. Did you examine her boilers ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. What was her tonnage? 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. For how long a time did you charter her ? 

Answer. I am not sure whether there was any time specified. 

Question. Before the contact was concluded with him what other 
inquiries did you make for ships to charter? 

Answer. What ships were here and what could be had was a sub¬ 
ject of constant inquiry at that time, and I heard of a number. 
Several persons came to see me about ships. 

Question. What other ships did you examine? 

Answer. I did not examine any ships. I took it for granted that 
they were what they were represented to be. 

Question. What other ships did you go to see before making this 
engagement? 

Answer. I do not think I went to see any ships. 

Question. You went to see this particular ship, did you not? 

Answer. I do not think I went to see her with a view to charter¬ 
ing her. I had been on her previously. 

Question. Then you engaged this ship from your knowledge of her 
incidentally acquired ? 

Answer. Yes, sir : and upon the representation of Mr. Roberts 
and others who I supposed knew. 

Question. On what day had you been upon her ? 

Answer. On the Sunday previous, to see Colonel Burnside and his 
troops. 

Question. Did you acquire any personal knowledge of the character 
of the ship at that time ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Had you then when you engaged the ship, any personal 
knowledge of her character ? 

Answer. I said I had no knowledge of her, other than that acquired 
by a mere casual visit to her. 

Question. What personal knowledge, then, had you of the character 
of this ship previous to thus engaging her? 

Answer. I relied mainly upon the representations of her owner. 

Question. And that is the extent of your knowledge? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Was this the first ship you ever chartered? 


63 


Answer. I do not know which was the first. I chartered two or 
three about that time. 

Question. Was this, then, your first experience ? 

Answer. This was the only experience I ever had in chartering 
vessels. 

Question. State the terms of the charter-party. 

Answer. I cannot. 

Question. Cannot you give us the substance of it ? 

Answer. I cannot. 

Question. How much did you pay? 

Answer. Either $1,000 or $1,250 a day. The price was considered 
very high, but not more than was being paid at the time, and in the 
pressure we thought it wise to take her .’’ 

Mr. Cummings interested himself in other purchases for the gov¬ 
ernment. 

‘‘ Question. Since the termination of your duties under that commis¬ 
sion, have you had any other transactions with the government of any 
kind ? 

Answer. Not in the way of contracts. I had one transaction which, 
perhaps, might come under the scope of your question. When at 
Washington, after that, I heard a great deal of clamor on account of 
the want of shoes. Among others, I had heard General McDowell 
say there were regiments that could not be marched on account of the 
want of shoes ; and I stated this fact to the Secretary of War. He 
gave me a letter to the assistant quartermaster at Philadelphia, Colonel 
Thomas, telling him that if he had not a sufficient supply, to see that 
a sufficient supply for a force of not less than 200,000 men was 
obtained, taking care that no greater sum should be paid therefor than 
the government had before paid. I took that letter to Colonel Thomas, 
and he authorized me to procure shoes and forward them to him, if I 
could find anybody to make them. He ordered 75,000 pair. 

Question. What did you do ? 

Answer. I came to Benedict & Hall, of this city, a large firm in 
Broadway, very well known, and told them that Colonel Thomas had 
told me that it cost the government, to make their own shoes, about 
$2 20 a pair, which was the amount he had limited me to pay. They 
said they would undertake to make them at that price, although the 
government standard really made the shoe worth more than that. 
They took the order. 

Question. When was this? 

Answer. It was in May or June.” 

The committee have no occasion to call in question the integrity of 
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Hall, in his testimony, says that he did not pay 
Mr. Cummings anything for his services, but Mr. Cummings simply 
requited, in this way, the kindness of an occasional temporary loan of 
$500 or $1,000.—(See page 509.) “From a dollar and ninety cents 
to two dollars per pair would have been a fair price for the shoes, 
(sewed.) If pegged, $1 2.5 per pair.” 

Mr. Cummings says he makes no charge against the government 
for his services ; and as to the settlement of his accounts he testifies 


64 


at the time of his examination, (Sept. 6,) four months after this 
transaction had occurred, as follows : 

“Question. And what amount of supplies have you purchased up to 
this time ? 

Answer. This authority extended over a period of fifteen days, 
when I received a letter from the Secretary of War, saying that the 
communication had been reopened, and that the purposes of my 
appointment were now accomplished, and the necessity for it having 
ceased, there would be no further occasion for action outside of the 
regular authorities of the government. The authority under both 
letters ceased at the expiration of about fifteen days from the date of 
the last one, and probably from the date of the first one. There 
also came at the same time a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury 
to those gentlemen I have named, asking them to deposit with Mr. 
Cisco the remaining funds in their hands. They accordingly deposited 
with Mr. Cisco, in round numbers, $1,750,000. 

Question. The whole of your proceedings under both letters cov¬ 
ered how much money ? 

Answer. About $250,000. 

Question. $90,000 of which was to refund those gentlemen what 
they had themselves expended ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; that is my recollection. 

Question. And that left you $160,000 with which to cover your 
own expenses? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Has the government called upon you to settle this 
account ? 

Answer. The Secretary of War spoke to me about it recently, and 
I told him as soon as I obtained the vouchers from Mr. Blatchford 
they should all be forwarded together. 

Question. How long since you filed your vouchers with the govern¬ 
ment for the expenditure of the $160,000? 

Answer. The vouchers I still have, but I returned to the depart¬ 
ment a statement of the articles forwarded. 

Question. How long since you made that statement to the gov¬ 
ernment? 

Answer. There has been no statement forwarded to the government 
except a statement of the articles furnished. 

Question. Has the government called upon you to furnish the 
vouchers ? 

Answer. I do not kno was they havec ailed upon me formally, but 
I have stated that I was ready to forward them at any time. 

Question. How long is it since your authority was superseded ? 

Answer. It was some time in May; but all the transactions were not 
closed in May. There were some purchases of coal. I waited to have 
that shipped, and then I waited for Mr. Blatchford to return to the 
city, in order that I might get the two sets of vouchers and forward 
them all. 

Question. Was the coal purchase an extensive purchase ? 

Answer. About 2,000 tons. 

Question. From whom did you make that purchase ? 


65 

Answer. Of the parties who are furnishing the Navy Department 
with coal. 

Question. And at the same price ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When did you make the purchase? 

Answer. It was ordered about the time their first purchases were 
made, but it was not all shipped. 

Question. Was there any difficulty in the ordinary officers of the 
government making that purchase under contract ? 

Answer. They had no contract. 

Question. Was there any difficulty in their furnishing articles of 
that kind? 

Answer. Not that I know of. 

Question. Through whom was the coal purchased? 

Answer. I asked Mr. John Tucker to purchase it, and the reason 
was that he was in Philadelphia, and was familiar with the whole 
coal business. 

Question. Was there not a quartermaster in Philadelphia? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And a commissary? 

Question. Would not that supply naturally be furnished by the 
quartermaster ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it would, if ordered by him. 

Question. The quartermaster was a competent person, was he not? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Why did you not do it through the proper officer of the 
government ? 

Answer. Because I did not think it necessary. I supposed my 
authority covered th-e whole ground. 7 ’ 

Mr. Cummings, in expending this money, does not seem to have 
regarded it important to act in concert with the regular government 
officers. 

“Question. Did you consult with General Wool as to the character 
of the purchases you made ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you have any conference with officers of the govern¬ 
ment who, under other circumstances, would have had control of the 
department of business in which you are engaged? 

Answer. I went to Major Eaton, assistant commissary here, and I 
talked with Colonel Tompkins. 

Question. Did you make any purchases under their supervision or 
direction? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you do any one of the acts which you did do under 
this authority in concert with either of those officers? 

Answer. I can hardly say that I did.” 

He gave no bond for the faithful appropriation of the large sum of 

5 


money placed under his control, and took no oath of office. His 
relations to the Secretary of War are thus stated : 

“Question. (By Mr. Holman.) You are personally acquainted with 
the Secretary of War? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. How long have you been acquainted with him personally, 
and what are your relations politically ? 

Answer. I have been acquainted with him for many years, and my 
personal relations with him are very intimate, and we have been 
politically acting together many years. 7 ’ 

After Mr. Cummings had concluded his testimony and taken the 
same for revision, he added the following note : 

“I have retained, under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
by Messrs. Dix, Blatchford, and Opdyke, one hundred and forty thou¬ 
sand dollars, besides what I have stated in-my testimony, which is 
accounted for by the vouchers. 

A. CUMMINGS. 77 

Mr. Cummings expressly stated that he had drawn out of the hands of 
Messrs. Dix, Opdyke, and Blatchford $250,000 of the $2,000,000 placed 
in their hands, and had paid to them $90,000 to cover the supplies 
they had purchased, and had expended himself $100,000, and that the 
residue, $1,750,000, by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, was 
re-deposited with Mr. Cisco, the sub-treasurer. Still, we are informed 
by this note that Mr. Cummings has retained $140,000 of the money, 
over and above that stated in his testimony, ($250,000,) “ which is 
accounted for by the vouchers. 77 This item seems to have been over¬ 
looked by him in his testimony. One hundred and forty thousand 
dollars is in his hands, over and above the $160,000 for which he has 
filed vouchers in the War Department, and over and above the 
$90,000 for which the vouchers are retained by Mr. Blatchford; and 
he deems it sufficient to state in general terms that it is “accounted 
for by the vouchers. 77 What vouchers; and who has got them? 
Can the Secretary of War pretend that the national peril and the 
necessity for immediate action justified these irresponsible expendi¬ 
tures of the public money, with no settlement for four months after¬ 
wards, even if there had been no responsible and experienced public 
officers in New York to perform the duties? 

Among the army supplies purchased by Mr. Cummings, are the 


following: 

280 dozen pints of ale and porter, $1 87.- $525 00 

35 quintals codfish, 300 boxes herring. 214 37 

200 boxes cheese, 26 packages butter, and cartage ••• • 1,541 79 

6 barrels of tongues. 127 60 

1,670 dozen straw hats. 4,145 68 

19,680 pairs of linen pants. 17,220 00 

23 barrels of pickles. 

25 casks of Scotch ale, price not stated. 

10 casks of London porter, price not stated.. 


790 Hall’s carbines, (rej 7 d arm,) $15 each; 35 cases, $35 11,890 0 q 










It is not unnecessary to say that these arc not understood to be 
‘‘ army supplies ,” as tlie term is used, except the 790 Hall’s carbines, 
which is the same arm sold by the War Department in the following 
June for $3 50 each.—(See page .) 

Some of the above articles were shipped by the Cataline, which 
was probably loaded on private account, and not being able to obtain 
a clearance the cargo was in some way, through Mr. Cummings, 
transferred over to the government, Scotch ale , London porter , selected 
herring , and all.—(See page for the cargo of the Cataline.) 

The committee call attention to the accounts furnished them by 
Mr. Cummings. He says in his testimony, (page 397,) that Messrs. 
Dix, Opdyke & Blatchford purchased supplies, and chartered vessels 
&c., to the amount of $90,000, for which he d rew in their favor on the 
funds deposited in their hands; yet in furnishing the account for their 
expenditures he makes it $164,971 38, and swells his own account to 
a sum largely exceeding the amount mentioned in his evidence. It 
would seem impossible that these accounts should ever be intelligently 
settled, from the miscellaneous manner in which the business has been 
conducted. 

Mr. Cummings had no general acquaintance with business in New 
York. He had been a newspaper editor in Pennsylvania for twelve 
years, and had been in New York as the publisher of another paper 
for some eighteen months. He was the intimate personal and 
political friend of the Secretary of War, and “acquainted with 
the internal arrangements and connexions of the railroads of 
Pennsylvania” over which supplies are to be shipped, and he is 
invested with the control of $2,000,000 to purchase equipments for 
our army and charter vessels for transporting troops and sup¬ 
plies. He takes no oath and gives no bond. Without any occa¬ 
sion for calling in question the personal integrity of Mr. Cum¬ 
mings, his want of fitness for the position, from want of experience, 
is very manifest, and yet at that very time there are in the 
same city of New York gentlemen of the highest character whose 
qualifications, integrity, and patriotism have never been questioned, 
so far as this committee is informed, filling the public offices through 
which have always been performed the very duties assigned to Mr. 
Cummings. Their great experience in their respective departments, 
as commissary and quartermaster, was at that moment of peculiar 
importance to the government ; yet they are virtually superseded. 
The committee has been unable to perceive any possible reason for 
this. 

In the judgment of the committee, the employment of Mr. Cum¬ 
mings by the Secretary of War to purchase army supplies, charter 
vessels, &c., to the exclusion of the competent officers in the public 
employment at New York, was unjustifiable and injurious to the pub¬ 
lic interests, and a dangerous precedent. It is the system they ques¬ 
tion and not the integrity of the agent. The committee call the 
attention of the House especially to the failure of the War De¬ 
partment to require an adjustment of these accounts, four months 
having elapsed since the supplies were furnished, and still even the 
vouchers for the expenditures had not at that time been sent to th% 


War Department. And the Blatchford vouchers are still unfiled, and 
the accounts still unsettled, as the committed are informed, though it 
is proper to state that the Secretary of War has since requested 
their settlement. The public interests demand more vigor, system, 
and promptness, and no condition of public affairs have justified this 
loose and irregular performance of public duties. Such a system of 
public policy must lead inevitably to personal favoritism at the public 
expense, the corruption of the public morals, and a ruinous profligacy 
in the expenditure of the public treasure, organizing an army of sap¬ 
pers and miners whose covert assaults on the nation would scarcely 
be less effective than the open assaults of its traitorous enemies. 

In the judgment of the committee, the purchase of supplies for army 
and navy purposes by private contracts, when competition might be 
invited, and through irresponsible personal friends of parties holding 
position under the government, when regular and responsible agents 
of the government can be employed, cannot be too severely con¬ 
demned. Especially at this hour of national peril, the people have a 
right to expect fidelity and singleness of purpose on the part of their 
agents. 

The subjects of railroads and transportation are only incidentally 
referred to ; the committee, with the consent of the House, will reonrt 
specially on these subjects at a future time. 

CATTLE. 

In this matter there is much evidence of gross mismanagement 
and culpable carelessness in making contracts, together with a reck¬ 
less improvidence of the means of the government. Evidence exists 
of large contracts for cattle having been made without any advertise¬ 
ment for bids, or any effort being made by the agents of the govern¬ 
ment to satisfy themselves whether the price to be paid were exorbi¬ 
tant, or even extortionate. Cattle were furnished at prices per pound, 
live weight, very little, if any, below the retail prices for the meat 
in any of the markets of the country, and the contractors, without 
themselves furnishing a single hoof to the government, made large 
sums of money by sub-letting the contracts to other parties, who 
assumed all the responsibility and all the risks, and still made in pro¬ 
fits nearly as large sums as the original contractors. Take, for ex¬ 
ample, the contracts with Sibley, Tyler, Laughman, and Dyer, for 
ten thousand head of cattle, ‘ 1 more or less, 7 7 at eight cents per pound,, 
live weight, delivered in Washington, and 5J cents delivered in Har¬ 
risburg. This contract was sub-let to Williams and Allertons, of New 
York, at 6J cents per pound delivered at Washington, and five cents 
per pound delivered at Harrisburg. 

Under this contract 1,136,765 pounds were delivered at Washing¬ 
ton, for which Sibley & Co. received from the government $90,941 20; 
at Harrisburg, 2,028,892 pounds, for which they received $116,661 29. 

Williams and Allertons delivered these cattle at Washington for 
$73,889 72; at Harrisburg for $101,444 60. Sibley & Co. received 
from government $207,602 49, and paid to Williams and Allertons 
$175,334 32, leaving profits to Sibley & Co. $32,268 17 ; which 
amount of profits is so much money extorted from the govern- 



69 


merit, through carelessness or favoritism on the part of govern¬ 
ment officials who awarded the contract, for Williams and Aller- 
tons admit having made profits to themselves amounting to from 
$15,000 to $25,000. In this connexion is submitted the testimony 
of Joseph H. Williams and David and Archibold M. (pages 160 and 
158) -Allerton. 

We have here not only evidence of gross mismanagement, a total 
disregard of the interests of the government, and a total recklessness 
in the expenditure of the funds of the government, but there is every 
reason to believe that there was collusion upon the part of the em¬ 
ployes of the government to assist in robbing the treasury, for, when 
a conscientious officer refused to pass cattle not in accordance with the 
contract, he was in effect superseded by one who had no conscientious 
scruples in the matter, and cattle that were rejected by his prede¬ 
cessor were at once accepted. 

With such a state of things existing, if officers of the govern¬ 
ment, who should be imbued with patriotism and integrity enough to 
have a care of the means of the treasury, are ready to assist speculating 
contractors to extort upon and defraud the government, where is this 
system of peculation to end, and how soon may not the finances of the 
government be reduced to a woful bankruptcy? Your committee 
feel that they cannot too strongly condemn the manner in which this 
contract has been awarded, nor can they fail to censure the loose 
manner in which other contracts have been allowed to be fulfilled. 

THE PURCHASE OF HORSES AND WAGONS IN NEW YORK. 

The committee find great irregularities in the purchase of horses 
and wagons for the use and equipment of regiments. 

Men claiming to be in the employment of the government, by and 
with the evident consent and collusion of some of the officers of these 
regiments, have committed the most shameless frauds and peculations 
upon individuals and the government, according to the testimony of 
witnesses. 

From the testimony of John O. Taylor, of New York, taken Sep¬ 
tember 6 last past, it appears that Colonel Hiker, Quartermaster 
Yates, and Sutler Isaacs, of the Anderson Zouaves, and Lieutenant 
Colonel Kilpatrick, of the Ira Harris Light Cavalry, are implicated 
in these transactions, which bring upon the service dishonor, and 
upon the parties concerned disgrace. 

It appears from the evidence of said Taylor (see report, page 173) 
that a man, claiming to be an agent of the government, and who was 
buying horses for the Anderson Zouaves, by the name of Augur, with 
one James L. Dayton, of 111 Nassau street, New York, also claiming 
to be an agent of the government, bought of said Taylor six horses, 
a top buggy, and two sets of harness, for the sum of $970. These 
parties presented a requisition upon the government, signed and coun¬ 
tersigned by the colonel (Riker) and quartermaster, (Yates,) for $970, 
to pay for four horses, accompanied with a receipt from Colonel 
Riker, which read substantially in this way, (according to the testi¬ 
mony of witness :) “ Received of J. O. Taylor the following articles ]” 



70 


and for a more definite explanation a portion of the testimony of Mr. 
Taylor is herewith submitted. 

Then followed an enumeration of the property. 

“But there were only four horses mentioned, instead of six, and 
nothing said about the carriage and harnesses; but the price 

put upon the four horses was equal to that of the six horses 

and all the other property I sold—$970. I .said that would not 
do ; that the government would not pay such a price for the horses; 
that 1 understood they were paying only about $125, and this bill 
makes them worth over $240 each. He replied, ‘'Never mind; 
the regiment has the privilege of buying what they want for them¬ 
selves, and they want this property. 77 I afterwards understood 
that Augur took the top-wagon and one horse for his own use, and 
that James L. Dayton took another horse, or at least that it was 
delivered at his stable, and the other four horses the quarter¬ 
master of the regiment came to my stable and got. A few days 
after the property was delivered I saw Mr. Dayton and asked him 

when I should get the pay. He said it would be thirty days ; that 

when he went to Washington he would get the account acknowl¬ 
edged by the government, and would get the money for me. From 
that day to this I have not been able to find James L. Dayton, and I 
have not been able to get my pay. I did not want the transaction ta 
go into the bill in that way, and protested against it. 77 

Question. Who was the officer of the government who first came 
to you? 

Answer. Augur, I think, was a mere go-between. The first mili¬ 
tary man who came to me was the quartermaster of the Anderson 
Zouave regiment. 

Question. Augur, I understand, comes and makes the bargain with 
you? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Then what does he bring to you from th§ officer of the 
government ? 

Answer. The quartermaster of the regiment himself. 

Question. Then what does the quartermaster do? 

Answer. The quartermaster gives me a requisition upon the gov¬ 
ernment for the payment of four horses, amounting to the value of 
the whole property I sold to Augur—$970—and Augur takes two 
horses and the carriage, one of which horses he keeps himself and the 
other he carried over to James L. Dayton. 

It appears from all the evidence, which is detailed in the record of 
evidence accompanying this report, that the parties to these discred¬ 
itable transactions had a perfect understanding with each other, and 
engaged in a system of corrupt pecuniary gains by means of requisi¬ 
tions and receipts signed in blank, and false invoices, and at a time 
when the overtaxed finances of the government and the confidence of 
a generous and patriotic people demanded the most rigid integrity. 

It further appears from the testimony of Marcellus Randall (page 
179) and Isaac Mix, jr., (page 183, report,) both dealers in carriages 
in the city of New York, that a similar transaction was attempted 


71 


with them by the same parties, bnt the honesty of these men was an 
overmatch for the temptation to plunder, and that species of reckless 
indulgence which seems to have increased the morbid appetite of 
many, who, through the misfortunes of our country, have been 
placed in the accidental relation of officer, agent, or furnisher. They 
testify that Auger and Dayton had blank requisitions and receipts 
from Colonel Riker and Quartermaster Yates, and that these officers 
were not ignorant of the manner in which they were attempted to be 
used, for when Colonel Riker was informed of their mode of doing 
business, instead of expressing surprise or indignation, he simply 
remarked that he supposed they ought to have something for their 
trouble. 

It seems proper to say in this connexion that these facts were laid 
before E. Delafield Smith, United States district attorney, who 
promptly gave his aid, and had Augur and Dayton arrested. 

In the examination of Mr. John 0. Taylor, he refers to another 
matter, which should not, in the judgment of the committee, escape 
mention. It seems that he (Taylor) purchased the right to a horse 
contract from the Rev. Sidney Corey, a clergyman, residing in 37th 
street, near Fifth Avenue, New York city.—(Seepage 177 of testimony.) 
The contract was from Lieutenant Colonel Kilpatrick, of the Ira Harris 
Light Cavalry, and authorized Mr. Corey to purchase two hundred 
horses, mares included, running from fourteen to sixteen hands high, 
of any color but white, Lieutenant Kilpatrick to inspect them him¬ 
self ; price $120 each. 

The reverend gentleman informed Mr. Taylor that the lieutenant 
colonel was a particular friend of his, and gave him the contract as a 
special favor, and that he could obtain the contract for the purchase 
of one thousand horses if he desired it. An arrangement was finally 
made by which Taylor paid Corey $200 cash in hand, and was to 
give him one-half of the profits. After purchasing seventeen horses, 
Lieutenant Colonel Kilpatrick appeared, with one Chase, who was 
said to belong to the Ira Harris Light Cavalry, to inspect them. 
Chase took Taylor aside and said, “Unless you will give me two 
dollars apiece for each horse, I will not pass a horse.” Taylor paid 
the two dollars each, but, according to his relation of the case, was 
so utterly disgusted that he gave the contract back to the said Corey. 
He afterwards learned that he (Corey) resold the same for a bonus of 
$500 to parties who had gone west to purchase horses to fill it. 

From the facts elicited in this branch of the investigation, it ap¬ 
pears that military officers and agents of the government, or men 
who in some sense were acting as agents of the government, includ¬ 
ing a minister of the gospel, have been guilty of gross abuses upon 
private rights and upon the public treasury, and in other respects 
have proved faithless to the trust committed to them. 

CONTRACT BROKERAGE. 

The committee call attention to a case of the prostitution of official 
position to the base purpose of illegal gain, as set forth in the 
evidence of Samuel A. Hopkins, page 501. 


72 


A man by the name of Wood, enjoying the confidence of the Presi¬ 
dent, was appointed Commissioner of Public Buildings, a place not 
only requiring great business capacity, but unflinching integrity. 

Wood, from his own declarations, as disclosed in the evidence, 
made himself an instrument for plundering the government. Mr. 
Hopkins visited Washington to bid on the contract for engraving 
treasury notes and bonds, and the difficulties he experienced are fully 
set forth in his testimony. 

The evidence disclosed the fact that Wood said to witness, “that 
his salary was of no earthly object to him; that he would not stay in 
Washington for his salary if he could not make something outside; 
that he had already made three dollars apiece on a lot of guns sold 
to the government, and that lie had an opportunity, situated as he 
was, to operate in that kind of a way every day . } ’ 

To show the manner of letting the contracts referred to, the wit¬ 
ness says: “I found, upon inquiry at the proper office, that a circular 
had been issued by the Treasury Department to the National Bank 
Note Company and the American Bank Note Company asking them 
to submit specimens of treasury notes and bonds according to accom¬ 
panying specifications. Then followed a description of what they 
wanted. We having had no such notice, of course could not compete 
with them, and Mr. Ormsby submitted to the Treasury Department, 
with specimens of his work, and with his recommendations, the state¬ 
ment taken from the New York papers of the arrest, by the marshal, 
of the officers of those companies, which contained a minute state¬ 
ment of the size of the plates, the number of the plates for the 
treasury notes and bonds for the Southern Confederacy, which those 
companies had been engraving. Soon after that Mr. Wood, the 
Commissioner of Public Buildings and Grounds, came to me and said 
he wanted to see me, and proposed to take a walk. I consented, 
and we walked out into the street, went up towards the Treasury 
building, and sat down upon some flagging stone. He said to me: 
“I understand you are here with Ormsby, trying to get w r ork from 
the government in the ^vay of engraving. I ^vant to tell you, as a 
friend, that there is no use at all of your trying; that the work will 
be given to the American Bank Note Company and the National 
Bank Note Company.” I replied, “How is that? I have as good 
a right as anybody.” “I will tell you why,” he said: “Between 
you and me, I am interested in the American Bank Note Company 
myself, and have been at work for them here, and have got things ail 
right; and Dennison, the naval officer of New York, and his friends 
F. P. James and William H. Marston, are interested in the National 
Bank Note Company, and they have got the thing figured all right.” 
I said to Mr. Wood, “Mr. Wood, I don't know how this thing is, but 
I have been in Washington several times to try to get appointments, 
or to supply the government with something they wanted, and although 
I have offered to do or furnish as cheap or cheaper than other parties, 
I get no kind of attention, and these things are managed in such a 
way as to shut out men who should have a fair chance. I have come 
now and brought with me a small steel rifled cannon, of which there 
are twenty-five in one battery.” I gave him a description of the 


gun. Ho replied, “I can help you do that; I can put you in the way 
of doing that. What do,you want for them?” I said, “They were 
built by contract three or four years ago, for the Mexican govern¬ 
ment, lor $1,175 each, but I am authorized to sell them for $500 
each.” Says he, “Well, I can help you in that matter. Say nothing 
about the price; we can make something out of that. If the govern¬ 
ment wants them, they can as well afford to pay more as less. I will 
take you down and introduce you to Mr. Leslie, the chief clerk of the 
War Department/ ’ I said I had as yet been unable to reach any¬ 
body in the War Department/ ’ 

The committee, in the discharge of their duty, made a representa¬ 
tion of the above facts to the Executive, but before any action was 
taken government was relieved from the presence of an unworthy 
official by his resignation. 

FORTIFICATIONS AT ST. LOUIS. 

Your committee now approach the subject of the building of the 
fortifications of St. Louis. The circumstances surrounding this work 
are of the most extraordinary character, and are marked by extrava¬ 
gance, recklessness, insubordination, and fraud. 

As to whether any fortifications were, or not necessary is a question 
for military men, which your committee will not presume to pass upon 
in this connexion. Brigadier General Curtis, however, late a re¬ 
spected member of the House of Representatives, and a civil engi¬ 
neer, who had at one time been an engineer for the city of St. Louis, 
testified before the committee that he had seen no exigencies since 
the commencement of the war that would, in his judgment, require 
the erection of any such fortifications.—(Page 615.) The Secretary 
of War, in an order dated the 14th day of October last, declared 
them unnecessary, and ordered the work thereon to be discontinued. 

But the committee are prepared to say, that if any fortifications 
were necessary, it is no question with them that they might have 
been built by the soldiers without material cost to the government, 
the same as they have been built at Washington, Cincinnati, Cape 
Girardeau, Bird’s Point, Cairo, Fort Holt, Paducah, and perhaps 
other places. The fortifications are ten in number, (numbered from 
1 to 10,) forming a cordon around and within the suburbs of the city. 

In answer to the question, under whose supervision these forts had 
been constructed, General Curtis answered: 

“Under the general supervision of the chief engineer, Major Franz 
Kappner, and another man, F. Hassendeubel, signing himself “col¬ 
onel commanding engineer corps/’ Both of them hold appointments 
under General Fremont. There are also several other officers I met 
claiming that they held similar appointments in the corps of engineers, 
but none of them, as I could find, are regular engineers in the army 
of the United States, or have been regularly mustered in under the 
law. 

Question. Whom did you find connected with the engineering de¬ 
partment of the army of the United States there? 

Answer. They were generally Hungarians, Austrians, and Prus- 


74 


sians, I think, and none of them connected with the engineering de¬ 
partment of the army of the United States, either the topographical 
or the engineering service of the United States, but the chief is a 
man of evident ability and integrity of character, though a man Avho 
can scarcely speak our language. 77 

Only two days’ work had been done on any of the forts (and that 
was done on forts No. 3 and 4) before the 16th day of August last. 
The location of the forts had, however, been fixed previous to this 
time by Messrs. Asboth, Hassendeubel, and Fiala, gentlemen holding 
appointments only from General Fremont. No engineer or other 
officer of the regular army of the United States appears to have been 
at all consulted in relation to these fortifications. The officer holding 
the appointment of chief engineer under General Fremont, Major 
Franz Kappner, (accompanied by his accomplished son as an inter¬ 
preter,) appeared before your committee and gave very full evidence 
in regard to the works. Major Kappner impressed your committee, 
as he did General Curtis, as “a man of evident ability and integrity 
of character, 7 ’ and they are gratified in being able to say they find 
nothing in his conduct which challenges his integrity or patriotism. 
Major Kappner had been employed in fortifying Cape Girardeau, but 
on the 16th day of August he was called to St. Louis to attend to the 
building of the fortifications there. He employed workmen by the 
day, and commenced building the forts numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 
being half of the whole number. These five forts were one-fifth 
larger, on an average, than the five numbered G, 7, 8, 9, and 10 The 
five forts from 1 to 5 inclusive, built by Major Kappner by day’s 
work, cost $60,000, and he testifies that the other five, from 6 
to 10 inclusive, could have been built for at least that sum. These 
last five were commenced about the last of August or first of September, 
and from that period all the forts were in progress of construction at 
the same time. Their building was superintended at first by Mr. 
Hassendeubel, and after he left, Major Kappner superintended the 
whole of them. After the work had been going on in this way from 
the last of August or first of September a contract was “made and 
entered into on the 25th day of September, 1861, between Brigadier 
General J. McKinstry, quartermaster United States army, acting by 
and under the special orders and direction of Major General John C. 
Fremont, commanding western department, of the first part, and E. 
L. Beard, of St. Louis, of the second part. 77 —(See contract, page 886.) 
Beard is a Californian, who followed Fremont to St. Louis. Thus it 
will be perceived that for twenty-five days before this contract had 
been entered into, the work had been progressing on all of these forts 
under the plans made by Major Kappner. Major Kappner was build¬ 
ing himself the five numbered from 1 to 5 inclusive, yet the contract 
stipulates that Beard was to “construct all the fortifications required 
by the engineer in charge of the work for the defence of the city of 
St. Louis. 7 7 Notwithstanding Kappner was building five of these forts 
himself by the day’s work of men employed by him, and notwith¬ 
standing, further, that, the work upon the other five, from 6 to 10 in¬ 
clusive, under the superintendence of Hassendeubel, were progressing 


75 


from the 1st to the 25th of September, yet the contract made on the 
25^/i of September goes back and covers the construction of “all the 
fortifications.’ 7 Though the contract was entered into by McKinstry, 
it is set out in the body of the instrument that he acted “under the 
special orders and direction” of General Fremont. Clements, the 
chief clerk of McKinstry, testifies (page 887) that McKinstry was di¬ 
rected from headquarters to make the contract. Therefore, although 
signed by McKinstry, it is the contract of General Fremont himself, 
made by his “special order and direction.” 

There was no security given, as far as it appears, for the comple¬ 
tion of the work, either in the shape of a bond or retention of the 
money, one of which is very essential, and is always demanded as 
security to the government. (See Captain Turnley’s testimony, page 
919.) There is no pretence that any proposals to have the work 
done, were issued, or that bids were put in, and that it was awarded 
to the lowest bidder. Beard was to be allowed for the work “the 
following rates, that is to say: for all excavations, forty-five (45) cents 
per cubic yard; for all earth embankments, fifty-five (55) cents per 
cubic yard; for all puddled earth, ninety (90) cents per cubic yard; 
for sodding the fortifications, embankments, &c., one dollar and fifty 
cents ($1 50) per yard; for paving walks and yards, floors of block¬ 
houses, &c., one dollar ($1) per square yard, said pavement to be of 
the best quality of gravel pavement; for building all cisterns, tanks, 
<fcc., for holding water, twenty-five (25) cents per cubic gallon of two 
hundred and thirty-one inches, said cisterns to be of the best quality, 
complete with arched bricks, crown and cement finish; for all the 
timber and lumber used in building the block-houses, magazines, 
and quarters of officers, soldiers, sewers, Ac., and all labor used in 
constructing the same, (timber and lumber to be measured in the 
buildings, &c., as the same are completed,) one hundred dollars per 
thousand feet; for constructing all the facings, brushworks, &c., re¬ 
quired on the work, one dollar per cubic foot; for roofing all the 
buildings, four dollars and fifty cents ($4 50) per square of one hun¬ 
dred superficial feet, the same to be made of the best quality of 
three-ply gravel roofs.”—(See contract, page 886.) 

It is stipulated that the work should be done within five days from 
the time it should be laid out and specifications furnished, and that 
payments should be made on the certificates of the engineer in 
charge, stating the amount of work done. Though the contract was 
made on the 25th of September, yet it can hardly be credited that the 
sum of one hundred and fifty-one thousand dollars was paid to Beard 
before the date of the contract. The payments were made as follows: 


First payment, August 29, 1861 . $10,000 00 

Second payment, September 2, 1861 . 15,000 00 

Third payment, September 5, 1861.. 60,000 00 

Fourth payment, September 6, 1861 . 66,000 00 

Fifth payment, October 3, 1861 . 20,000 00 


Total of payments.. $171,000 00 












76 


Here is an amount of one hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars 
paid to Beard on this work, the last payment made only eight days 
after the date of the contract. All the amounts were paid upon the 
direct personal order of Major General Fremont, with the exception 
of the first ten thousand dollars, which he instructed his military 
secretary. Major Eaton, to order to be paid, (see testimony of Hahn, 
page 1000, and of Captain Turnley, page 917.) Major Kappner 
says the work on these forts which Beard was building was com¬ 
menced on the last of August or 1st of September. The first pay¬ 
ment of ten thousand dollars on the 29th of August was undoubtedly 
made at the commencement of the work. At the expiration of three 
working days, to wit, on the 2d of September, fifteen thousand dol¬ 
lars more was paid, making twenty-five thousand dollars. On the 
third day afterwards, September 5, General Fremont makes the fol¬ 
lowing order : 

“ Headquarters Western Department, 

“September 5, 1861. 

“You will advance sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) to Mr. E. L. 
Beard, contractor, as he informs me that without the advance of this 
sum he must discharge a large portion of his force, and thus delay the 
work on our fortifications. 

“J. C. FREMONT, 

“ Major General Commanding. 

“ Brigadier General J. McKinstry, Q. 31. U. S. A .” 

This amount of $60,000 was paid to Beard, though he had been 
paid $25,000 three days before, when he had been engaged only 
three working days on the job. Yet, two days after, General Fremont 
gave the urgent order above set out, stating that unless the money 
was paid he (Beard) must discharge a large portion of his force and 
“ delay the work on our fortifications/’ But that is not all. The 
following order (see page 916, Turnley’s testimony) is given by the 
general. It will be seen that there is a most singular omission of a 
date to this order, which would take from the treasury the insignificant 
sum of sixty-six thousand dollars. 

“Headquarters of the Western Department. 

“You will advance a further sum of sixty-six thousand dollars 
($66,000) to Mr. E. L. Beard, contractor, as he informs me that with¬ 
out the advance of this sum he must discharge a large portion of his 
force, and thus delay the works on our fortifications. 

“J. C. FREMONT, 

“Major General Commanding. 

“ Brigadier General McKinstry, Q. 31. U. S. A.” 

“Indorsed: Captain Turnley, who has funds, will comply with 
General Fremont’s order. 

“j. McKinstry, 

“Acting Quartermaster General. 

“September 6, 1861.” 


77 


The date of McKinstry’s indorsement on the order, however, di¬ 
recting Captain Turnley to comply, fixes the presumption that the 
Gth of September was at least as late as the time on which it was 
given. On the 5th of September the general says in his order on 
the quartermaster that sixty thousand dollars must be advanced, or a 
portion of the force discharged and the work delayed. On the next 
day, September G, the general gives another order on the quarter¬ 
master, in precisely the same language as the order given on the 
previous day, directing the quartermaster to pay to said Beard the 
sum of sixty-six thousand dollars. Captain Turnley paid this last 
order on the 12th of September. It will be perceived that General 
Fremont had ordered the sum of one hundred and fifty-one thousand 
dollars to be paid to Beard in seven working days after he had com¬ 
menced the job, and every dollar of which was actually paid in four¬ 
teen days after the work had been commenced. On the 19th day of 
September, seven days after Beard had received the last-named sum 
of sixty-six thousand dollars, General Fremont gave him another 
order on the quartermaster for thirty-five thousand dollars, the order 
stating that without that further sum Beard would “be unable to 
continue the building of the fortifications.” But in the meantime 
the funds of the quartermaster’s department had given out, and the 
amount was not then paid. The amount of twenty thousand dollars 
paid to Beard on the 3d of October, as testified to by Hahn, (page 
1000,) is believed to have been paid on this order. The orders 
speak of Beard as the “contractor,” but no contract is found to 
exist until the 25th day of September, and Captain Turnley, in a 
memorandum made on the back of the order for the payment of 
thirty-five thousand dollars on the 19th of September, says : 

“I have not got, and have never been furnished with, the contract 
with Mr. Beard.” 

Though Beard was building these fortifications from the 29th of 
August to the 25th of September, nothing is known of any contract 
except the one referred to, which was entered into on the 25th of 
September. While it is provided in said contract that the payments 
should be made on the certificate of the engineer in charge, no evi¬ 
dence is to be found that payments were made on such certificates. 
On the other hand, it is believed that the payments were made 
without them, and without any knowledge of what work had been 
done. The testimony of both Kappner and Hahn render it perfectly 
certain that no estimates were ever made. The pretences, as set out 
in the orders of General Fremont, for the payment of the sixty thou¬ 
sand dollars, the sixty-six thousand dollars, and the thirty-five thou¬ 
sand dollars, that the force must be discharged and the work delayed 
unless the amounts were paid at that time, are certainly unfounded. 

It has been shown that the sum of one hundred and seventy-one 
thousand dollars was paid to Beard up to the 3d of October, the sum 
of twenty thousand dollars being paid on that day, as is supposed, 
on the order for the thirty-five thousand dollars, dated September 19. 
Up to this time, therefore, the sum ordered to be paid by General 
Fremont to Beard was one hundred and eighty-six thousand dollars, 


78 


on account of the construction of these works. On the 14th day' of 
October, 1861, the Secretary of War, through Adjutant General 
Thomas, gave an order to General Fremont to discontinue the erec¬ 
tion of the field works around the city of St. Louis, and not to pay 
any more money on account of them, and directed that no more funds 
should be transferred to irresponsible agents, that is, to men not 
holding commissions from the President, and not under bonds.—(See 
order, page 1088.) 

This order was immediately forwarded by Capt. McKeever, assis¬ 
tant adjutant general, from St. Louis to General Fremont, who was 
then in the field, and it reached General Fremont two or three days 
after that. Your committee understand it to have been the duty of 
General Fremont, as an officer loyal to his superior authority, not 
only to have promptly obeyed the said order, but to have officially 
promulgated it, commanding obedience to it by all under his command. 

In palpable disregard of his duty, General Fremont neglected to 
make such promulgation. After this order of October 14, had been 
delivered to General Fremont, (see testimony of Major Allen, page 
1095, and also of Captain McKeever, page 1054, particularly as to 
time,) he made an order on the 19th day of October, through J. H. 
Eaton, his acting assistant adjutant general, to Major Allen, the 
quartermaster at St. Louis, to “turn over to Mr. Beard, out of first 
funds received from Washington, the sum of sixty thousand dollars, 
($60,000,) for work done on the forts of St. Louis. ”—(See order, 
page 1097.) 

It will be seen, therefore, the total amount ordered to be paid to 
Beard, on account of these works, by General Fremont, was two hun¬ 
dred and forty-six thousand dollars , of which one hundred and seventy- 
one thousand dollars was actually paid. Through the firmness of 
Major Allen, who appears to be a vigilant and incorruptible guardian 
of the public interest, this last amount of sixty thousand dollars was 
saved from going into the capacious and already gorged pocket of 
Beard, who, in the language of Major Allen, was the “leader among 
the contractors,” and perhaps “the most extravagant and grasping 
of them all.” 

Before paying this money in the face of the order of the Secretary 
of War, Major Allen very properly submitted the question of its 
payment to General Meigs, the chief of the quartermaster’s depart¬ 
ment in Washington, (see Allen’s testimony, page 1098.) General 
Meigs directed him to disregard all orders inconsistent with the order 
of the Secretary of War, of October 14. 

In the whole range of their investigations your committee have 
found nothing so alarming as the defiance of law and the disregard of 
superior authority, as manifested by the commanding general of the 
western department, not only in this connexion, but in connexion 
with the arbitrary and illegal diversion of funds from the paymaster’s 
department and the sub-treasury at St. Louis, which is hereafter 
referred to. Whenever the action of a general in the field, disre¬ 
garding alike law, army regulations, and the authority of his govern¬ 
ment, shall be permitted to pass without challenge and without 
rebuke, then indeed may it well be considered that constitutional 


79 


liberty is at an end and the will of a military commander is substituted 
for law. This subject is considered of so much importance as to jus¬ 
tify a very full quotation from the testimony of Major Allen, as follows: 

“ Question. How has that order of the Secretary of War been pro- 
mulgated here, if promulgated at all? 

Answer. It has never been officially promulgated. We know of it 
here only through the public prints. 

Question. I see by looking at that order that it is directed that the 
construction of the field works at St. Louis and Jefferson City should 
be discontinued, as also the work upon the barracks which are being 
constructed near General Fremont’s headquarters. Has the order in 
that respect been complied with ? 

Answer. The work at the barracks is still continued, and everything 
goes on as if no order had been issued. 

Question. Do I understand you to say that this order is inoperative 
unless promulgated by the major general commanding the department? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I so consider it. 

Question. If the parties who are constructing these field works and 
barracks had such notice of that order as would satisfy them of its 
genuine character, would they, after such notice, have any authority 
to go on with the works. Or are they only bound by an official notice 
duly promulgated by the coramander-in-chief of the army? 

Answer. This order of the Secretary of War would be binding, ac¬ 
cording to my knowledge of the usages of war, unless the order of the 
commanding general to the contrary should be repeated. In that 
case, according to military rule, the last order is to be obeyed, and 
the responsibility falls upon the commanding general, or officer giving 
the order. 

Question. If the commanding general of the department should 
never promulgate such an order when he gets it from the Secretary 
of War, how is that order to be carried out? 

Answer. It is inoperative unless promulgated by the commanding 
general. 

Question. Do I understand you, then, to say that the Secretary of 
War cannot command these things to be done excepting through the 
commanding general here ? 

Answer. No, sir; there is this distinction: the Secretary of War can 
order me, for instance, not to turn over any money on account of 
fortifications. That order I will obey unless I receive a counter order 
from General Fremont. I would be justified then in disobeying the 
order of the Secretary of War and obeying the order of General Fre¬ 
mont. I do not say that I would or would not do so, but that 1 would 
be justified in doing so. 

Question. Upon what principle ? 

Answer. Upon the principle of obeying the last order you receive. 

Question. So that the only way by which the War Department 
could prevent the exercise of arbitrary power in the payment of 
claims, or in the transfer of money, would be by withholding the 
money or removing the commanding general ? 

Answer. There is no other remedy. 

Question. Is not the refusal or declination of the major general 


80 


commanding a department to carry out an order of the Secretary of 
War setting up an authority upon his part over and above the gov¬ 
ernment ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; setting up an authority unknown to the law. 

Question. Would the giving of a peremptory order upon a quar¬ 
termaster to pay over a specific fund into the hands of the command¬ 
ing general, in defiance of a counter order from the Secretary of War, 
be setting the authority of the government at defiance ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What reason is there, if you know of any, why this order 
has not been promulgated by Major General Fremont ? 

Answer. I know of no other reason than that he did not intend to 
obey it. 

Question. He was not in the city at the time, but he was within 
reach, was he not ? 

Answer. I know the order of the Secretary of War was received 
by him. 

Question. What are your means of knowledge of that fact ? 

Answer. I know that the order of the Secretary of War was re¬ 
ceived at a certain date—which I do not recollect now—from informa¬ 
tion derived from Captain McKeever, the assistant adjutant general. 
He forwarded it himself by special messenger, and knew at what 
time that special messenger arrived, and I know that the order given 
to me in relation to the payment of money on the forts was made on 
a subsequent day—certainly one or two days afterwards. 

Question. Can you fix the date when Captain McKeever sent the 
order ? 

Answer. I see the order is dated October 14, and it must have got 
to General Fremont two days after that. 

Question. If the major general commanding the department had 
determined to obey this order, do you know of any difficulty in the 
way of promulgating it ? 

Answer. None, whatever. 

Question. As the matter now stands, there are two conflicting 
authorities, are there not? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In what respect are they conflicting? 

Answer. The order of the Secretary of War directed that no 
money should be paid except for current expenses. It also directed 
all work to be stopped upon the fortifications and barracks, and that 
there should be no money turned over to contractors on account of 
work upon the fortifications. In the first two cases the order has 
been disregarded, as the work is still going on upon the barracks, 
and as I have received orders from General Fremont, through his 
adjutant general, to turn over this money to Mr. Beard, subsequent 
to the receipt by General Fremont of the order of the Secretary of 
War. 

Question. Then, do I understand you to say that after General Fre¬ 
mont had full knowledge of this order of the Secretary of War he 
has given you a peremptory order in direct contravention to it ? 

Answer. Yes, sir.” 


81 


Having shown the amounts which were paid to Beard for building 
the fortifications, particular reference will be now had to the rates to 
be paid him as fixed by the terms of the contract. . He was to have 
45 cents per cubic yard for excavations; fifty-five cents per cubic yard 
for earth embankments ; for all puddled earth, ninety cents per cubic 
yard ; for sodding the fortifications, embankments, &c., $1 50 per 
yard square; for paving walks and yards, &c., $1 per yard square; for 
building cisterns, tanks, <fcc., 25 cents per cubic gallon of 231 inches; 
lumber and all labor used in constructing the same, $100 per thousand; 
for constructing all facings, brushworks, &c., $1 per cubic foot, and 
$4 50 per square of 100 feet for roofing. 

Hon. John M. Wimer, former mayor of St. Louis, testifying from 
actual knowledge of the cost of such work, stated, that taking into 
consideration the average wages of men during the last five months, 
that fifteen cents per yard would have been “a good price’ 7 for the 
excavations, embankments, and sodding on the fortifications.—(See 
Wimer’s testimony, page 878.) The price agreed to be paid by the 
contract for those three items is $2 50 per yard. General Curtis 
says the prices agreed to bo paid for excavations, embankments, pud¬ 
dling earth and paving walks, are exorbitant, and “at least double 
the cost of such work.”—(See Curtis’s testimony, page 616.) Major 
Kappner, who, it will be recollected, built the first five forts, and who 
can therefore speak from actual knowledge, says that the excavation, 
embankment, and sodding on the forts that Beard built would cost 
ninety cents per yard, which is $1 GO less per yard than what the 
contract provides shall be paid to Beard. For paving walks, yards, 
floors, <fec,, for which the contract price is $1 per yard, he says that 
it would cost from, nine to ten cents per yard; for building the 
cisterns, which the contract fixes the price at twenty five cents per 
cubic gallon, he says two and one-seventh cents would be a fair price; 
that the fair cost of the lumber and work which the contract 
allows $100 per thousand feet for, would be from $35 to $40. The 
cost of roofing per square of one hundred feet, which the contract 
allows $4 50 for, he thinks would be worth between four and five 
dollars. In that, however, he is evidently mistaken, for it was 
shown, in connexion with the roofing of Benton barracks, that Cristy 
proposed to put on the same kind of a roof at $3 per square. There 
is, however, another way of testing the character of this contract. 
The five forts built by Major Kappner, by days’ work, which would 
ordinarily be the most expensive way, cost the sum of $60,000, while 
they were one-fifth larger on an average than the five built by Beard. 
Major Kappner testifies positively that the five forts built by Beard 
would certainly not cost more than the sum of sixty thousand dollars, 
which the five forts cost that he built. Allowing to Beard the liberal 
estimate that the cost of building the five forts which he constructed 
was sixty thousand dollars, he has already obtained from the treasury 
of the United States the profit of one hundred and eleven thousand 
dollars; and had the additional amount of seventy-five thousand dol¬ 
lars been paid him, which General Fremont had ordered to be paid, 
the government would have been defrauded in that one transaction 
G 


82 


out of the enormous sum of’ one hundred and seventy-six thousand dol¬ 
lars. 

From the fact *that the contract with Beard was entered into so 
long after the work had been commenced by him, it has the appear¬ 
ance that it was really intended to cover all the work on all the forts, 
that done by Major Kappner by days’ work as well as by himself, 
for the purpose of enabling him to obtain pay for the whole at the 
extravagant and outrageous prices provided for in his contract. It is 
but justice to General McKinstr}' to state that he is not responsible 
for this contract. It was made at headquarters, and the enormous 
and unconscionable prices were there fixed upon between General Fre¬ 
mont and the contractor, and the payments made by him on the con¬ 
tract were made by the express direction of General Fremont. He 
acted for the commanding general, and by his direction. Beard 
brought to him a paper from headquarters. “formally drawn up,” 
which contained the prices.—(See Clements’s testimony, page 885.) 
He objected to the prices, and “greatly reduced them.” If the prices 
named in the contract were the “ reduced ” prices, it would be a mat¬ 
ter of curiosity to know what the original prices were as sent from 
headquarters. 

It must be understood that every dollar ordered to be paid by Gen¬ 
eral Fremont, on account of these works, was diverted from a fund 
specifically appropriated for another purpose. Congress makes special 
appropriations for fortifications, and the works are made in pursu¬ 
ance of plans furnished by the engineer department at Washington, 
and the payments are made by warrants sanctioned by the Secretary 
of War. This whole matter cannot be made clearer than by refer¬ 
ence to the testimony of Captain Turnley, (page 917,) which is set- 
out as follows : 

“ Question. What connexion has the quartermaster with such works? 

Answer. None in the world, unless it is to improvise defences for 
the moment. 

Question. Was this $66,000 you paid upon that authority, money 
which was legitimately and properly appropriated to such payments ? 

Answer. No, sir; it was specifically appropriated for the quarter¬ 
master’s department, for clothing, transportation, &c. 

Question. Do I understand you to say that the $66,000 which you 
paid Beard was money which the quartermaster’s department of this 
city had received from Washington city for the purpose of purchasing- 
horses and wagons, forage, and the transportation of troops, &c., and 
for equipping the army? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it was for the legitimate purposes of the quar¬ 
termaster’s department in organizing the army. 

Question. Why, then, was it diverted from that purpose ? 

Answer. Purely upon General Fremont’s order. 

Question. What authority had General Fremont to make such an 
order upon the quartermaster’s department? 

Answer. No authority, except that, as commader-in-chief, his orders 
are superior to all others upon the spot, and are necessarily obeyed for 


83 


the sake of subordination. I sent a copy of the order an hour after 
I got it to Quartermaster General Meigs, at Washington. 

Question. Have you heard from him upon the subject ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What did he say? 

Answer. That the order was illegitimate, and that I was right in 
not obeying the order. 

Question. Do you know that any measurement or estimate of the 
work done by Beard upon these fortifications had been made at the 
time this $66,000 was ordered to be paid? 

Answer. I did not then know that any contract was in existence 
for the work.’’ 

The money appropriated by Congress to subsist, and clothe, and 
transport our armies was thus, in utter contempt of all law and of the 
army regulations, as well as in defiance of superior authority, ordered 
to be diverted from its lawful purpose, and turned over to the cormo¬ 
rant, Beard. While he had received one hundred and seventy-one 
thousand dollars from the government, it will be seen from the testi¬ 
mony of Major Kappner that there had only been paid to the honest 
German laborers, who did the work on the first five forts built under 
his direction, the sum of fifteen thousand and five hundred dollars,leav¬ 
ing from forty to fifty thousand dollars still their due. And while these 
laborers, whose families were clamoring for bread, were besieging 
the quartermaster’s department for their pay, this rapacious con¬ 
tractor, Beard, with a hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars in 
his pocket, is found following up the army, and in the confidence of 
the major general, who gives him orders for large purchases, which 
only could have been legally made through the quartermaster’s de¬ 
partment, and which afforded him further opportunities for still plun¬ 
dering the government. 

Your committee hope that some means may be found to make the 
parties to this atrocious contract disgorge the sums out of which the 
government has been defrauded, and that the laborers who have done 
the work on the faith of the government will not longer be delayed 
in receiving their just dues. 

PURCHASES OF HORSES AND MULES. 

Your committee found that the most astounding and unblushing 
frauds had been perpetrated in the purchase of horses and mules, 
made by the quartermaster’s department; and the evidence left no 
doubt on their minds that the quartermaster himself was in collusion 
with corrupt and unprincipled men, who combined together to 
swindle the government. In these purchases fraud was perpetrated 
in every possible way. In the first place, matters were so arranged that 
it was impossible for the original owners to sell either horses or mules 
directly to the government, but all such sales were made by certain 
middle men and go-betweens who it appears alone could get any 
horses or mules taken by the quartermaster’s department. The maxi¬ 
mum price fixed to be paid by the government for ordinary cavalry 


84 


horses and for mules was one hundred and nineteen dollars, and that 
appears to have been the sum paid by the government for every 
cavalry horse and every mule purchased in Missouri. The maximum 
price for artillery horses was one hundred and fifty dollars. 

The prices paid by these go-betweens to the original owners, or 
the legitimate dealers, immediately representing-the original owners, 
ranged from $85 to $105, $108, and $110, for cavalry horses and 
mules, and $125 for artillery horses. The difference between these 
prices and the prices paid by the government—that is, $119 for cavalry 
horses and for mules, and $150 for artillery horses—went into the 
pockets of the favored go-betweens. This difference of price in the 
purchase of the vast number of horses and mules amounted in 
the aggregate to a very large sum, the greater part of which your 
committee believe could have been saved to the government had the 
purchases been made honestly, openly, and fairly, for the best inter¬ 
ests of the government. One of the witnesses, Peter Wiles, in his 
testimony, (page G95,) explains very fully the operation of this way 
of doing* business: 

“Question. Is it not your opinion, then, from a knowledge of the 
facts, that the government could have procured, through proper 
agencies, all the horses and mules they wanted at a price not exceed¬ 
ing $105 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Would not that have been the result if the arrangement 
which was originally made with you had been carried out? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I am confident I could have bought the horses 
at that price. The reason horses and mules have cost the government 
so much is, that they do not deal with first parties, but through con¬ 
tractors and sub-contractors. The first contractor under the govern¬ 
ment gets $119 a head for the animals; another contractor under him 
furnishes them to the first contractor at a much less price; and then, 
not unfrequently, a third sub-contractor furnishes them to the second 
contractor at a still reduced rate; and the consequence is, that as each 
contractor must make a profit the government gets a very poor animal 
for the money it pays. 

Question. Then there were three or four hands through which the 
animals had to pass from the farmer before they reached the govern¬ 
ment, each person charging a profit?” 

But the fraud in the manner of purchase was only one of a series of 
frauds in that connexion. There was a fraud in the inspection. By 
the indulgence of a “generous confidence.” the favored individual 
who had the good fortune to have the right kind of authority to buy 
horses for the government either inspected himself or was permitted 
to select his oiun inspector, which, of course, resulted in a corrupt in¬ 
spection. In some cases, direct bribery was resorted to. 

Frederick Hainan testified in regard to the difficulty he had in 
getting his horses inspected. The following is extracted from his 
testimony, (page 582:) 

“ Question. What difficulty did you experience ? 


85 


Answer. I do not know as we had any difficulty exactly in getting 
them inspected. I suppose we had some horses once in a while which 
were not very good. 

Question. Did you finally get them passed? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. How ? 

Answer. It cost a little money once in a while. 

Question. How much ? 

Answer. At one time we had a lot of horses that were not very good, 
and 1 paid $50 to Dr. Keller and Major Yarian to get those horses 
through. I made a bargain with Dr. Keller. 

Question. What was the bargain ? 

Answer. I told him that if he would get the horses through I would 
pay him $50. They were pretty sound horses, but without paying 
something I could not get them through. Bad horses were being put 
in, and good ones rejected; but I was not as well acquainted with the 
manner of doing things as some others were, and I finally concluded 
that I had better let $50 slip and get them in rather than have the 
horses on my hands. I said to Keller, “I will tell you what I will 
do: if you will get the horses in for me I will give you fifty dollars. 77 
He said he would do his best to get them in. He said my horses were 
good, sound horses, otherwise he would not take them. 

Question. What did you do ? 

Answer. I paid him the $50. 77 

There was also fraud in branding horses. For instance, a horse 
would be bought and branded as a cavalry horse, to be put in to the 
government at $119, and when the back of the seller was turned 
another brand would be put on him by the inspector as an artillery 
horse, to be put in at $150 ; the government being thus handsomely 
defrauded out of the difference between $119 and $150 on each horse. 
Among the artists engaged in these peculiar horse transactions, one 
James Neil, called familiarly ‘*Jim Neil, 57 maintains a standing of 
precarious pre-eminence. James L. Ganzehorn testified in this com¬ 
mittee that this Neil used him badly, and the following is extracted 
from his examination, (pages 560 and 561 :) 

Question. In what respect did Neil use you badly? 

Answer. He was to give me $100 each for the mules, but he 
gave me only $90. 

Question. Was that the only transaction you had with him? 

Answer. No, sir ; he came to me several times and told me that 
if I would furnish him horses he would give me $120 for artillery and 
$100 for cavalry horses; I brought him one day a lot of horses which 
I had bought, subject to inspection, of friends of mine who lived in 
the country—they brought me their horses, and I agreed to give a 
certain price if the horses passed inspection—three of those I wanted 
Neil to brand as artillery horses : he said he could not do that as 
they were not large enough ; I told him they were heavy enough and 
large enough, and that they were artillery horses ; he said he could 
not take the responsibility of doing it; so rather than take the horses 


86 


back I let the horses go, and he branded them as cavalry horses. I 
stayed there all day, and towards evening a police officer in the yard 
attempted to clear the yard. 1 thought something was wrong, and I 
stayed around and would not go out, or at least I thought I would 
stay until they forced me out, as I wished to see what was going on. 
Neil then sorted out, to the best of my judgment. 20 or 25 of the 
horses he had bought that day for cavalry horses, and took them up 
to the fire and branded them as artillery horses himself. It is the 
custom to brand cavalry horses once on the shoulder, and to put an 
additional brand on the hind quarter for artillery horses. Three of 
the horses which he branded at that time as artillery horses were 
three of those which he purchased that day of me as cavalry horses, 
and which he refused that morning to take the responsibility of 
branding as artillery horses, and which, as he would not do that, I 
let him have as cavalry horses. 

Question. What interest do you suppose Neil had in changing the 
brand ? 

Answer. The interest probabty is to be found in the fact that 
the government allowed from twenty to twenty-five dollars more for 
artillery horses than for cavalry horses. 

Question. Do you mean to say that Neil Avas acting as purchaser 
and government inspector at the same time ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; lie paid me for the horses himself; he teas the 
purchaser and inspector of horses, and he branded them himself. 

Question. Who paid you ? 

Answer. James Neil.” 

James Everett (page 547) gives an account of the transactions of 
James Neil in this connexion, and the folloAving is quoted from his 
examination : 

“ Question. Do you know a man by the name of James Neil? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. What connexion has he had with the purchase of horses 
for the government? 

AnsAver. I saw him buy horses and inspect them himself. 

Question. When did you see that? 

Ans\A T er. It A\ T as on the 18th. 19th, or 20th of last month. 

Question. Hoav many horses ? 

AnsAver. I saAv the horses counted out of the yard at night, and 
there Avere 98 counted out as branded that day by himself. I did 
not sell him any horses My brother showed him a horse one day, 
but from Avhat he saAv he concluded that it Avas a thieving operation, 
and he Avould not sell him any more. 

Question. Who sold him the horses he branded himself? 

Answer. John L. Ganzehorn sold horses to Neil. He keeps a feed 
store here. 

Question. And Neil inspected and branded them himself? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Hoav many A\ T ere there ? 

AnsAver. 98. It Avas a matter of general talk about the neigh¬ 
borhood that Jim Neil should buy and inspect his oAvn horses. He 


87 


treated the owners of the horses from whom he bought badly. He 
ivould tell them that he could not brand their horses as artillery horses , 
and so he would buy them as cavalry horses; but at night , after the owners 
had ■ gone aivay, he would put another brand upon the hip , making them 
artillery horses, which were worth $30 the most. I understood he treated 
eighteen horses that Avay. The owners said that Avas stealing their 
money. 

Question. What price was Neil paying for horses? 

AnsAver. He Avas paying that day $1.20 for artillery horses, and 
$100 for cavalry horses. TJte owners ivould get the cavalry price, and 
he Avould get the artillery price.’’ 

Patrick Brennen and Patrick Fanning corroborate the. testimony of 
Ganzeliorn, (pages 583 and 584.) Brennen makes this statement : 

‘•I had a horse one day to sell, and I Avent up to the inspection. 
Jim Neil and Allen Avere to inspect that day. The}' Avere buying. 
They appeared to have everything to do. I had a ho-rse there, and 
I could not put him in myself, and I gave him to another man to put 
in for me. I should have been alloAved for him as an artillery horse, 
judging from the appearance of other horses there that day. When 
the man came back he said Neil said he could not brand that horse 
but once—that is, as a cavalry horse. Neil bought the horse and 
branded him as a cavalry horse In an hour after the yard was 
ordered to be cleared, but some of us got around into the back part 
of the yard and remained. Then the large horses Avhich Avere there 
were brought forA\ T ard by Neil and Allen and branded again upon the 
hip. I remarked to the man avIio put in my horse that that was 
wrong, that my horse A\ 7 as branded twice. He said he could not help 
it, that he could only get the price of a cavalry horse for him. 

Question. Did you see them brand your horse the second time. 

Ans\\ 7 er. I saAv them brand my horse as an artillery horse after 
they had bought him as a cavalry horse.” 

Of course, Avlien horses Avere purchased through such agencies the 
government A\ms certain to be defrauded, not only in the payment of 
the large sums going to the middle men, but in the quality of the 
stock purchased. Large numbers of utterly Avorthless horses were 
imposed on the government, all at the maximum price. Old, broken- 
doAvn omnibus, Avagon, and dray horses, and mules, Avere picked up 
Avith avidity by contractors. Mr. Roberts, a AAdtness, gives an illus¬ 
tration, (page 528 :) 

“ Our drayman sold to the government his team of three mules. 
He had two very decent mules, and one Avhich was good for nothing. 
He sells t\\ T o of them to one of the contractors ; the third one they 
would not look at at all, as he Avas all jammed up. He sold t.A\ T o upon 
the condition that they would pass the next day for $80 each. He 
went Avith the mules the next day, and one mule passed while the 
other Avas thrown back upon his hands. The drayman goes then and 
.gets the rejected mule shod anew, put on long corks so that the mule ivould 
come up to the standard. They then received that mule. He then, 


88 


the next day, takes the old mule to another contractor, puts ten 
dollars more on his head, and the mule was received at $90.’’ 

When it came to be understood how this matter of furnishing the 
government with horses was going on, it was perhaps to be expected 
that the business would assume important proportions. One of the 
witnesses (Mr. Harkness) says, (page 539:) “Buying horses got to 
be a perfect rage here. Dry goods merchants went to dealing in 
horses, and quit their regular business. They would watch the ferry¬ 
boats and watch the farmers coming in, and would hail them, “ Want 
to sell your horse?” “Yes, sir.” “How much will you take?” 
The reply would be $75 or $80, according to the quality. And they 
would buy the horses at a price agreed on, provided they would 
pass inspection.” 

The man Neil, heretofore mentioned, seems to have been in his 
element in this state of things. Mr. Harkness, (page 533,) who 
went out several times to see them inspect horses, sa>s: “When I 
saw Neil out there one day, I told him I thought this thing would 
pay pretty well, considering the kind of horses they were taking in 
there. ‘ Yes,’ he said, l it is a damned good thing ; I am doing pretty 
well now, and when I get through with this I have 200 more to buy, 
and I can make a pretty good thing out of that.’ Said I, ‘How can 
you get them to buy? there is no contract out.’ He said, ‘I will 
get that fixed, for the contract is already made.’ I thought it very 
strange that a man of his standing in the city should get a contract 
for 200 horses, or should be appointed a government inspector, for 
heretofore the government had usually appointed respectable citizens. 
It was published in the city papers that he was a government in¬ 
spector, or was acting in that capacity.” 

The same witness gives an account of the manner in which in¬ 
spectors w r ere appointed, (page 535:) “These inspectors were ap¬ 
pointed by Major McKinstry. Whoever was fortunate enough to get 
an order from the quartermaster for the purchase of horses got an 
inspector of his oion selection appointed , and, of course, the inspector 
passed and branded everything which was produced by the party 
who got him appointed. I have known Flannegan to buy a three- 
year old filly for $65, and get her passed in fifteen minutes afterwards, 
under the inspection of his own inspector, Keller. 

“On another occasion I went out to Grand avenue, where it was 
said they were going to inspect horses; I took an interest to see how 
the thing was conducted. This man Keller was there, though he had 
not been appointed inspector, as Flannegan had not come here then. 
Two very respectably citizens from Iowa were down here, and wanted 
the chance to bring flown some horses. I went out there to let them 
see how horses were passed. Keller was there half drunk, and, in a 
conversation which sprung up about the army and other war matters, 
Keller said ‘ ive ivonld soon drive the God-damned Lincoln hordes out of 
this State.’ ” 

Your committee quote further from the examination of Mr. Hark¬ 
ness in relation to the value of the horses purchased and the manner 
of purchasing, (page 536:) 


89 

“Question. Did you see a great many of these horses which were 
passed ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; thousands of them. 

Question. What was their average value in the market here? 

Answer. Many of them were, to my certain knowledge, purchased 
for from $65 to $85. 

Question. Taking them as a whole, what were they worth on an 
average ? 

Answer. One hundred dollars would be a very large price for them. 

Question. Would the government have had any difficulty in obtain¬ 
ing these same horses by proper management upon its part, at rates 
not exceeding $100 each? 

Answer. None whatever. Thousands of them could be bought for 
that price. There was nothing in the way of the government pro¬ 
curing those animals of the men who brought them in. If there had 
been a repectable man appointed to inspect horses, so that the re¬ 
spectable farmers of Illinois and Wisconsin could have come in and 
had their horses inspected, the horses could have been bought at their 
real value, and the farmer would have gone home satisfied with the 
government, because it would have been doing him justice. As it is, 
many of them have come in from Illinois and Iowa for 300 miles 
round, and could not sell their horses to the government except 
through second hands. This second-hand business shuts out respect¬ 
able citizens, and many hundreds of good farmers have gone home 
disgusted, while many others, who came here at large bills of ex¬ 
pense, were obliged to sell for what they could get. But whatever 
they sold at, the government was obliged to pay $119 for the horses.” 

Your committee desire particularly to call attention to the transac¬ 
tion in relation to the sale of some mules to the government, as de¬ 
tailed by the testimony of Broadhead, (page 529,) of Peay, (page 
540,) and of McPike, (page 551,) and which connects the quarter¬ 
master and two of his confederates, Pease and Neil, with a gross and 
palpable fraud upon the government. Robert W. Peay had a lot of 
mules for sale, and was applied to by Neil to purchase them for the 
government. He was unwilling to sell to Neil or to Pease individu¬ 
ally, but would sell to the government. He made application to 
Major McKinstiy, the quartermaster, who agreed with him to take 
such of his mules as Avould pass the inspection of a Mr. Blakely at 
$110 each. He turned over on this agreement 296 mules, and made 
out the account for them to the government at $110 each, and had 
the same certified to by Blakely, who had inspected and branded 
them. Mr. Peay left this account with Neil, to have it allowed and 
to obtain the proper voucher. But when he wanted this voucher, 
he was surprised at being told by Neil that Pease had it, and that 
instead’of being made out in his own name at $110 per head, at 
which he had sold the mules to McKinstry, it was made out in the 
name of Neil at $119 per head, and Pease claimed he had an interest 
in it of some $6,000 or $7,000, and he was not willing to give it up 
till that amount was paid. James O. Broadhead, esq., a gentleman 


90 


of the highest character and respectability, whose legal services in 
the matter were called into requisition by Mr. Peay, makes a clear 
statement of the whole matter, to which reference is had generally 
and particularly in the following extract: 

“ Question. (By Mr. Dawes.) Then is not the transaction, in effect, 
this : That your client sold his mules to McKinstry for $110 apiece, 
and by some management that you do not know of at the quarter¬ 
master’s department the title was put into Neil, and the mules passed 
to the government at $119 a head. 

Answer. That is it. I recollect distinctly of asking this man Peay 
why it was that Pease had anything to do with the matter. He told 
me he was some relation or friend of McKinstry. I should have 
stated before that I saw Pease a second time before I got the voucher. 
On the first occasion when I saw him he and Peay made a calculation 
of the amount which was coming to Peay for the sale of the mules at 
$110 a head. It amounted to some $42,000, and thereupon Peay, 
who had spoken to me to attend the matter, gave me an order upon 
this man Pease, who it seemed had the management of the business 
up to that time, to pay me the sum thus ascertained. Peay signed 
the order, and that order I kept some time. I suppose it is now de¬ 
stroyed, as I was up at General Porter’s one day and lost it out of my 
hat. General Porter found it and informed me of the fact. I told 
him it was of no account, and I suppose he destroyed it. He can 
state the nature of the voucher. 

Question. The whole payment made to your client was made upon 
the basis of $110 a head? 

Answer. Yes, sir; the basis of $119 ahead was expressly excluded.” 

The whole transaction, therefore, seems to be simply this : Peay 
sells to McKinstry, the quartermaster, 290 mules at an agreed price 
of $110 per head. The mules are inspected and received, and he 
makes out his bill against the United States for the amount due ac¬ 
cording to the price agreed on. Instead of receiving his voucher of 
that amount , the voucher is, ivithout his knowledge or consent, by the 
quartermaster issued to James Neil at $119 per head, and finds its way 
into the hands of Joseph S. Pease, who claims a right to hold it until 
he is paid the interest which he has in it. 

Thus by this collusion between the quartermaster’s department 
and Neil and Pease, the government in this one transaction is de¬ 
frauded out of the difference between $110 and $119 on 290 mules. 

Charles M. Elleard figures largely as a horse-dealer, and seemed to 
have the good will of the quartermaster, as he says he laid McKinstry 
under great obligations to him by having him (McKinstry) retained 
in office in place of Colonel Crossman, who “was an old fogy.” He 
sold two thousand horses in all to the government, but he had to 
take in as a partner, on the recommendation of McKinstry, an old 
friend of his from Detroit, one J. P. Brady, who was a visitor at St. 
Louis on this interesting occasion. This man Brady, the friend of 
McKinstry, shared $20,000 profits with Elleard in the horse purchases, 
and that, too, without the investment of a dollar of capital, and with- 


91 


out giving bis individual services in assisting in the purchases. The 
conduct of the quartermaster in giving Elleard the contract to put in 
two thousand horses at the maximum prices, but with the request 
that Brady should have half the profits, without putting in any of the 
capital or doing any of the work, and which amounted to $20,000, 
was corrupt in its tendency and purpose, and prejudicial in the last 
degree to the public interest. 

Your committee quote from the examination of Elleard, (page 769:) 

“ Question. You have stated that although Brady’s name was not 
used as having any interest in buying the horses, yet that he was in¬ 
terested to the amount of one-half; that he furnished no part of the 
capital, except as you have named. Now state what consideration 
induced you to let Brady into a contract of which his portion of the 
profits was $20,000. 

Answer. Nothing but the simple words of McKinstry, that he and 
I had better work together. 

Question. Did you understand that it was the desire of McKinstry 
that you should take him in with you? 

Answer. Most assuredl}\ 

Question. What was your idea in that respect? 

Answer. I supposed that he was a friend of McKinstry, and that 
McKinstry would like to advancehis interest in that way; I also thought 
that as they were from the same town, and very old acquaintances, 
it might advance my interest to take Brady in ivith me. 

Question. The public interest was not advanced in any way by giv¬ 
ing Brady an interest in the matter ? 

Vnswer. Not at all. 

Question. You could, have carried out the contract just as well 
without him ? 

Answer. Certainly; everybody knows that. 

Question. It was the same as putting $20,000 into the man’s 
pocket ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; and I was advised not to do it. Blair advised 
me not to do it; but I told him I had agreed to do it, and I would 
do it ; and I did do it.” 

Further reference is had to the testimony of Elleard in regard to his 
presentation to Mrs. Fremont of a carriage and horses on the ground that 
he supposed it would be gratifying to “Frank Blair,” and which 
Blair, with marked propriety, told Mrs. F. she “ better not take;’ 
also in regard to his lending McKinstry his horse and buggy, but which 
McKinstry did not return , but Elleard had to go after them himself 
after he (McKinstry) had left, and after this committee had com¬ 
menced its investigations at St. Louis. 

The testimony of Almon Thomson is referred to in connexion with 
these horse purchases. He was connected with Asa S. Jones, the 
United States district attorney, (whose position as an officer of the 
government should, in the judgment of your committee, have been 
deemed by him incompatible with his being a contractor ;) John II. 
Bowen, (who figures extensively in other matters,) and J. P. Wheeler. 


92 


Thomson had bought out for himself and Wheeler, Bowen’s interest 
in a contract for buying horses which he (Bowen) had obtained jointly 
with Jones, and gave therefor the sum of $5,000. When Thomson 
went to McKinstry for his pay he was told by him that Bowen’s share 
was to be deducted and left in his (McK.’s) hands. Thomson thought 
that strange, as he had given Bowen no order on the quartermaster 
for that amount of money. On demurring a little to leaving the money 
with McKinstry, he thinks he was told by McKinstry that other par¬ 
ties were interested in Bowen’s share. It turned out, by testimony 
subsequently taken, that Joseph S. Pease (who was a connexion of 
McKinstry, and who appears prominently as implicated in the frauds 
of the quartermaster’s department, ; was the man who Bowen had to 
divide with. Mention has been heretofore made of the prominent 
position occupied by James Neil as a horse contractor, inspector, and 
general favorite at the quartermaster’s office. It seems that he per¬ 
formed some small service for Thomson connected with his contract, 
and charged therefor the enormous sum of $1,000, the payment of 
which was refused. What would, under ordinary circumstances, seem 
singular was, that McKinstry should have been found pressing Thom¬ 
son to pay this $1,000 on the ground that Neil had ‘ ‘ done a great deal” 
for them.—(Page 636.) Thomson seems to have been no longer in 
favor at the quartermaster’s office, whether from the fact of his refus¬ 
ing to pay this amount to Jim Neil, or for his refusal to subscribe $150 
for the silver service to Mrs. McKinstry, or for his refusal to subscribe 
$250 for horse and carriage for Major McKinstry, or from some other 
reason, must be left for inference. He was told, unless he paid, he 
would have difficulty in “collecting” his dues from the government. 
(Page 641.) It must be said, however, that Thomson was not forget¬ 
ful of the obligations of gratitude; for, after he “got through with 
the contract,” he “presented the son of Major McKinstry with a 
riding pony.” To use his own words, “that was the only mark of 
respect I showed to the family of Major McKinstry.”—(Page 643.) 

There is another transaction, as detailed in the testimony of Cap¬ 
tain Turnley, (page 790,) to which particular attention is directed. 
Captain Turnley, assistant quartermaster, went to St. Louis in July, 
1861, and though an officer of the regular army, he Avas directed by 
General Fremont to attend at his office someAvhat in the capacity of a 
public business secretary. All his duties, however, Avere indicated to 
him by a man by the name of I. C. Woods, the military secretary of 
General Fremont. Captain Turnley, among other things. Avrote con¬ 
tracts for the delivery of horses, the price being always indicated by 
said Woods. The heaviest contract Avas for 1,000 horses. That 
contract Avas made at 8 o’clock at night. Colonel Woods sent for 
Captain Turnley, and said to him, “ General Fremont desires you to 
make a contract Avith Mr. Augustus A. Sacchi, of NeAV York, for one 
thousand Canadian cavalry horses, to be delivered here by the 30th 
of September. He will get $130 apiece for them.”—(Page 791.) 
Sacchi’s presence being needed, hev^as brought in by Woods. Cap¬ 
tain Turnley discovered that he Avas an Italian and could speak Span¬ 
ish much better than he could English, and he talked Avith him in the 


Spanish language. Captain Turnley wrote out the contract in full, in 
quadruplicate, as required by law, and left it in the hands of Colonel 
Woods, with instructions that it was necessary that it should receive 
the official endorsement of General Fremont, and that two copies 
should be sent to the Quartermaster General's office, in Washington. 
Sacclii left and went to New York, whence he telegraphed Captain 
Turnley, asking further time in which to fulfil his contract. Captain 
Turnley took the despatch to General Fremont, who said that not a 
day more could be given. Three days after a letter came from Sacchi, 
asking for time, urging many reasons. In reply to that letter General 
Fremont directed Captain Turnley to write Sacchi that he could not 
have one day beyond the stipulated time; that if Sacchi did not fulfil 
the contract he must obtain horses elsewhere. 

It seems that afterwards Sacchi assigned his contract to a man by 
the name of Bitting, of Philadelphia, and Bitting undertook to fulfil 
it, but he only delivered a few of the horses, which were received; 
and when he-wanted his pay, a long dispute arose between him and 
Captain Turnley, the Captain refusing to pay Bitting because the 
contract was not assignable, and he would not make out the account 
in the name of Bitting, but only in the name of A. A. Sacchi. Sacchi 
then had, of course, to draw the money. Then it came out from 
Bitting, to use the language of Captain Turnley, that “Sacchi was 
nobody—a man of straw, living in a garret in New York, whom 
nobody knew; a man who was brought out here as a good person 
through whom to work; and that rather recoiled upon Woods, who 
brought him to me. I have not seen Woods since, and so the matter 
stands in statu quo.” It will hardly be believed that the name of 
this same man Sacchi appears in the newspapers as being on the staff 
of General Fremont, at Springfield, with the rank of captain. 

Your committee believe, from the testimony of Captain Turnley, 
that this was a scheme by which the said Colonel Woods, who was 
denominated on the staff of General Fremont, as “director of 
transportation,” to defraud the government, and that he found in 
this man Sacchi, in the language of Captain Turnley, “agood person 
through whom to work." Woods made use of his official position, 
undoubtedly, upon the staff of General Fremont, in order to get 
authority to have this contract made with Sacchi, for the delivery of 
1,000 Canadian cavalry horses, at the extraordinary price of $130 
each. The idea of leaving the western States, full of the best quality 
of horses, for the purpose of going into Canada to purchase at the 
price named, seems to be an extraordinary one, and the only reason 
why it was done, which occurs to your committee, was that it afforded 
a better field for defrauding the government in the purchase of horses. 
Fortunately the vigilance of Captain Turnley, who wrote the contract 
in quadruplicate, as required by law, and the guards to the interests 
of the government, which he incorporated in it, defeated the scheme. 
Sacchi was not able to carry it out in accordance with the rigorous 
terms of the contract which Captain Turnley had drawn up, and then 
it was, undoubtedly, that something was endeavored to be made out 
of it by the assignment to Bitting. 


94 


It is due to General Fremont to state that he seems not in anywise 
to have been interested in Sacchi’s having the contract, for when he 
was advised by Captain Turnley that Sacclii wanted more time, he 
promptly stated, as has already been set forth, that not a day more 
could be given. If the same care and vigilance had been exercised 
in other cases as was exercised in this by Captain Turnley, and had 
the rules and regulations of the department been adhered to, and 
contracts carefully drawn up, guarding the interests of the govern¬ 
ment, vast amounts of money would have been saved. 

John H. Morse was a resident of Jefferson county, Missouri, and 
was driven out in consequence of being too “prominently in favor of 
the Union cause.” He represents that he and his neighbors had a 
considerable number of mules which were in danger of being stolen 
from them, and to prevent which it was desirable to turn them in to 
the government. He therefore went to see the quartermaster, Major 
McKinstry, and proposed to sell them to the government for what 
they were paying. He says, “I told him that as Union men, we 
ought to have the preference over disunionists. He said he did ‘not 
care a damn of whom he bought the stock, so that the stock was fur¬ 
nished to the government, and the contract fulfilled.’ ”—(See 
page 705.) 

After one contract, for which proposals had been advertised, was 
filled, Mr. Morse again went to Major McKinstry, and inquired of 
him whether any more contracts were to be let for furnishing horses 
and mules. McKinstry told him there were not; that the government 
was not in need of any more. Morse then told him that he wished 
to turn in his mules to the government, as there was danger of their 
being stolen. Although McKinstry had told him that the government 
was not in need of any more mules, he states that he afterwards found 
out that horses and mules were being sold to the government at St. 
Louis, all the time, at $119 a head. He again tried to sell McKinstry 
the stock, but McKinstry would refer him “to such a man, and such 
a man.” 

The question was then asked Morse who these parties were. He 
replied, “I think they were Thomson and Phillips. I told him 
(McKinstry) I wanted to sell the stock directly to the government; 
that I wanted the contract prices, and that I claimed it as a right to 
do so. He replied, in a rough way, that he did not know anything 
about it; that he would have nothing to do with me.” 

Morse then sought the influence of Colonel Blair, who gave him 
a letter to McKinstry, in which Blair expressed the hope that 
McKinstry would take the stock if it was consistent with the interest 
of the government to do so, and stating that it was due to Morse that 
he should do so. Morse was then referred to Colonel I. C. Woods, 
at headquarters, and after beating about three or four days, Woods 
at last told him that Fremont had nothing to do with it; that it was 
entirely in the hands of McKinstry, and that Fremont would not give 
out a contract for mules, as the business belonged to the quarter¬ 
master’s department. Morse then told Woods that McKinstry would 
do nothing about it. Woods then said to Morse—using the language 


95 


ot the witness—(page 707:) “If I would call in at a certain time in 
the evening lie would see the general about it, and try to make some 
arrangement by which 1 could sell the mules. I called, according to 
appointment, and found Palmer there, and Woods turned me over to 
him. I went to the Planters’ House with him, and Palmer gave me 
a contract, in the name of Haskell, to furnish all the mules I could 
bring in. I told him I would get as many as I could. He agreed to 
give me $119 a head for them. I have the document, but it is not 
with me now. 

“Question. Did Palmer put in Haskell’s name? 

“Answer. Yes, sir. When I got the mules here I learned there was 
a misunderstanding; that Palmer did not know what Haskell was 
getting for the mules—so it was alleged—and that he could not pay 
me $119 for them. Haskell asked me how many head of stock I had. 
I told him, and told him that before I got the stock the understand¬ 
ing was that I was to have so much for them. Palmer and Haskell 
then told me that in order to get me out of the difficulty, and as there 
had been a misunderstanding, they would extend the contract several 
days; that I might go on buying mules, and that they would give me 
$119 a head for what stock I had of my own, and for what I bought 
$108 a head. 

“Question. About what time was this? 

‘ ‘ Answer. It must have been in the early part of September. They 
did give me $119 a head for ten head that belonged to me, and for 
that I had taken of my neighbors they gave me $108 a head. I bought 
what stock my neighbors had, w'hich they thought it would not be 
safe to keep.” 

Thus it will be seen that instead of the government taking the 
mules directly from Morse, Woods, who was on the staff of General 
Fremont, turned him over to Palmer for Haskell, and it was agreed 
that he should have $119 a head for the moles. But then a misun¬ 
derstanding seems to have arisen, and it was objected by Haskell to 
paying $119 for them; and to get out of the difficulty, Palmer and 
Haskell agreed to take what mules Morse had of his own, at $119 a 
head, but would only allow him $108 a head for the mules which he 
had belonging to other persons. Only ten head belonged to 
Morse, and he states in another part of his testimony that sixty head, 
which w r ere sold to Palmer and Haskell for $108 a head, belonged to 
other parties. 

As a further illustration of the manner in which this business was 
transacted, your committe quote the following testimony of the same 
witness, (see page 709 :) 

“Question. I understand you to say that McKinstry refused to take 
the mules directly at $108 a head? 

Answer. He refused to take them at all at any price, but turned 
me over to other parties. 

Question. And you were compelled to sell them at $108 a head, 
and take your pay in depreciated currency ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. McKinstry first refused absolutely, and when I 


96 


got the note from Mr. Blair, lie turned me over to General Fremont, 
and Woods referred me back to McKinstry. There is a set of favored 
contractors here in the city , and a man from the country has no chance 
when those men are in the market. Those men, Singleton and Thomas 
January, came to buy my mules. I told them they could have the 
mules for $108 a head in money. They asked me what money. I 
told them that when I spoke of money I meant money. They laughed 
at me and rode off.’ ’ 

And further on he says: “It has been a regular game to condemn 
a whole lot of mules, and then turn round, buy them at a reduced 
price, and turn them in to the government.” 

Mr. Leonidas Haskell, (one of the gang of California patriots, of 
whom there were six, consisting of said Haskell, A. A. Selover, 
E. L. Beard, Joseph Palmer, I. C. Woods, and H. C. Worth, and who 
hovered like sharks about the headquarters of the commanding gen¬ 
eral and of the quartermaster,) was one of the parties so highly favored 
with authority to purchase horses. He purchased a very large num¬ 
ber, deriving from the transaction the usual enormous profits. He 
appears to have been on the most intimate terms at headquarters and 
at the quartermaster's office, and every facility was extended to him 
to ‘enable him to get his horses inspected and have them received by 
the government. It appears that he had no contract, but merely an 
agreement from the government to receive such horses and mules as 
he should purchase and have inspected. Captain Turnley, in his tes¬ 
timony, (seepage 194.) says: 

“I know nothing of the agreement, except as it came out in their 
importunities to receive mules for him. Persons came daily to me to 
ask me to receive mules on Haskell's contractor agreement. I think 
1 have an order , in McKinstry’s handwriting , directing me to receive 
Captain Haskell’s mules.” 

As an evidence of the consideration in which this Haskell was 
held at headquarters, it appears that he was appointed upon the staff 
of General Fremont as aid, with the rank of captain. When it was 
objected that, being in the military service of the United States, it 
was not admissible for him to have any interest in contracts, there 
was a pretended transfer of such interest to Worth, who, according 
to the testimony of Morse, (page 708,) was the clerk of Haskell. 
Your committee have no doubt that this transfer was a sham, and that 
Haskell had really the same interest in the matter after his appoint¬ 
ment upon the staff as he had before. 

It would be tedious, and, perhaps, unprofitable, to go further into 
this matter of the frauds connected with the purchase of horses and 
mules. The testimony of a great many witnesses was taken which 
has not been referred to. There is the testimony of Coffee, (page 
555,) and of Irvine, (page 557.) There is also the testimony of John 
Allen, (page 573,) who furnished horses and mules to a contractor by 
the name of B. F. Fox, of Illinois, who was the brother of Mr. Fox, 
of the firm of Child, Pratt & Fox, of St. Louis. The vouchers which 


97 


Allen got were paid in Missouri money, at the quartermaster’s office. 
Mr. Allen stated that lie had long been a resident of Illinois, and was 
acquainted with a great many stock dealers, and could have furnished 
from 1,000 to 1,500 horses without difficulty, and would have been 
glad to have furnished them to the government at the same prices 
which he got from other parties, which was $105 a head for cavalry 
horses and $109 for mules. When asked why he did not deal directly 
with the government, he answered that the business was in the hands 
of such men that he could get no show, after trying every plan he 
could think of. He further says: ‘‘ I finally came to the conclusion 
that there was no chance to do anything except through other men, 
after every effort upon my part to get a contract with the quarter¬ 
master’s department.” 

Then there is the disingenuous testimony of John H. Bowen, the 
confederate of McKinstry and of Pease, to which your committee 
would refer, (page 575.) In the-sale of Bowen’s interest in the horse 
contract to Thomson, he was to have $5,000. Reference has been 
before made to the fact that McKinstry, when Thomson went for 
his pay, required that this money should be deducted for Bowen, and 
it was so deducted and retained by McKinstry. It turns out, from 
this testimony of Bowen, that Pease, the brother-in-law of McKinstry, 
was to have one-half of this amount. The fact that Bowen paid 
Pease, the brother-in-law of McKinstry, $2,500 as his portion of the 
profits upon this contract, may have something to do with the other 
fact, as stated in the testimony of Thomson, (page G37,) that the bid 
of Bowen for the contract was $119 50, and that of Jones $119. 
The contract was not awarded to Jones at $119; but McKinstry 
divided the matter, and awarded the contract to both of them. 

There is also the testimony of John D. Perry, (page 593,) which 
explains the difficulties he had in selling a lot of mules directly to 
the quartermaster. Mr. Perry was an old citizen of Missouri and 
St. Louis, and had received some mules from the centre of the State 
to sell, and he attempted to sell them directly to the quartermaster. 
He met with a great deal of delay, and many annoyances. On the 
evening of the third day that he had been at the quartermaster’s 
department, McKinstry said to him: “Here is the man I wanted to 
see. I want you (speaking to the man) to take Perry’s mules.” 
This man was a Californian—“Haskell’s man. Palmer.” Perry told 
Palmer he could make no contract with him; and when he went out 
of McKinstry’s office he met Haskell, and Haskell proposed to buy 
his mules for $108 a head, while he was getting $119 a head. Perry 
told Haskell he did not want to have any go-betweens, and did not 
wish to speculate off of the government. After much delay and 
trouble, he finally sold them directly to the quartermaster. He says, 
while waiting at the quartermaster’s office, that the following gentle¬ 
men seemed to engage the attention of the quartermaster most of 
the time while he was there: Mr. De Graft, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Selover, 
Mr. Haskell, Mr. Brady, Mr. Elleard, and Mr. Fox. There is also 
the testimony of Ansel Phillips, (page 719,) the agent of the Keokuk 
Packet Company. He also w^as engaged in the horse business, and 

7 


98 


upon the authority of Major McKinstry he purchased 196 head, but 
it was the understanding that he was to take in Bowen and Pease. 
And afterwards “ McKinstry 7 s young man. Jim Neil,” to use the 
language of the witness, came in and claimed a one-fourth interest 
in the profits. Pease did nothing whatever in reference to the 
purchase of these horses, and put in only $1,000. Bowen did not 
furnish a dollar. Subsequently, when Phillips went to settle with 
McKinstry, he objected to taking these men in as partners. Mc¬ 
Kinstry told him that that was the bargain. Phillips said that it was not 
right that he should divide, as he had done all the work and advanced 
all the money; but they insisted upon it, and he told them he would 
leave the matter to McKinstry. That he did, and McKinstry decided 
that he, Phillips, should pay them a part of the profits, including 
Jim Neil. 

The testimony of Lippincott, (page 725,) and of Arnott, (page 832,) 
in regard to the purchase of horses, is also referred to, as well as 
the testimony of Farnham, (page 850.) The testimony of the latter 
further illustrates the corruptions in inspections by bribing inspec¬ 
tors. 

Your committee will close this part of their report with a reference 
to the testimony of John D. Park, quartermaster of the Black Hawk 
Cavalry. About the first of September last four hundred and eleven 
horses, by the order of General Fremont, were sent from St. Louis 
to Warsaw, Illinois, the point where said regiment was rendezvous¬ 
ing. They were kept there and well taken care of until the 20th of 
October, when a board of survey was ordered to report on the con¬ 
dition of the horses. Major Park, in his testimony, says, (page 
810:) 

‘•They were kept according to the army regulations; were well 
taken care of, and received no injury whatever. Five of them died, 
and the remainder, three hundred and thirty, were pronounced as 
totally unfit for service. They had every disease known to horses. 
They were undersized, under and over aged, stifled, ringboned, 
blind, sprained, and incurably unfit for any public service. Such 
was the report of the board of survey. The report was made to me 
on Monday night, and I handed it over to General Prentiss.” 

The following is a copy of the report of the board of survey, cer¬ 
tified to by Major Allen, (page 1096:) 


‘ ‘ Camp Sullivan, 

“ Warsaw , October 21, 1861. 

“The undersigned, having been summoned as a board of survey to 
examine and inspect the condition of the horses forwarded to this 
regiment from St. Louis, and report the result to your headquarters, 
would respectfully report that we have examined said horses, and 
find seventy-six fit for service, five dead, and three hundred and 
thirty undersized , under and over aged , stifled , ringboned , blind, 


99 


spavined, and incurably unfit for any public service. Said horses are 
said to be the residue of the Missouri contract. 

‘‘Very respectfully, 

“DAVID McKEE, Major. 

“GEORGE ROCKWELL, Captain. 

“JOHN SCHEE, Lieutenant. 

“ Colonel William Bishop. 

‘ ‘ A true copy. 

“ROBT. ALLEN, Major and Quartermaster .” 

Nothing can show more clearly the incredible and stupendous 
frauds perpetrated in the purchase of horses in the western depart¬ 
ment. Thus, it will be perceived that out of the whole number of 
four hundred and eleven, five had died, and three hundred and thirty 
were rejected by the board for the reasons stated, and only seventy- 
six were received as fit for service. And what is remarkable, it 
appears by the testimony of Major Park that he was charged for 
those horses the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars each, by a 
bill which was sent to him from the quartermaster’s department at 
St. Louis. This was adding eleven dollars for each horse to the 
highest price paid for cavalry horses in St. Louis, which was one 
hundred and nineteen dollars. Where the difference went to has 
not been discovered. Major Park says, further, that the government, 
in that transaction, will not get out of it at a loss of less than forty 
thousand dollars, independent of the damage sustained in consequence* 
of the detention in filling up the regiment. 

FALSE VOUCHERS. • 

One of the most alarming frauds disclosed in the testimony taken 
by your committee at St. Louis, was the payment of money at the 
quartermaster’s office upon vouchers totally or partially false. Alex¬ 
ander Kelsey furnished articles, through Joseph S. Pease, the brother- 
in-law of McKinstry, to the amount of many thousand dollars, which 
articles went to the government. Your committee had brought before 
them an original voucher, and as the matter is one of so much im¬ 
portance, they set it out in full. It is as follows, (page 920:) 


The United States to Alexander Kelsey. 

1861. 

July 30. 28,000 pounds hay, at 70 cents per hundred • • • • $196 00 

514 . 10 —18,000 pounds oats, at 25 cents - • • • 128 55 

107 — 6,000 pounds corn, at 25 cents - • • • 26 80 

For Lieut. Shields’s volunteers, Cape Girardeau. 

29. 3,000 bushels (105,000 pounds) oats,at 25 cents 750 00 
For Major Spicer’s brigade, Missouri volunteers, 

Mexico, Missouri. 

Aug. 4. 5,000 bushels, 175,000 pounds, oats, at 26 cents. 1,300 00 
For Major Hatch, quartermaster, Cairo. 


2,401 35 





ICO 


I certify that the above account is correct and just, and that the 
articles have been accounted for on my property return for the quar¬ 
ter ending the 30th of September, 1861. 

J. McKINSTRY, 

Assistant Qnartermasfer. 

Received, St. Louis, Missouri, 31st of August, 1801, of Brevet 
Major J. McKinstry, assistant quartermaster United States army, 
twenty-four hundred and one dollars and thirty-five cents, in full of 
the above account. 

ALEXANDER KELSEY. 

It will be perceived that the above account is certified to by 
J. McKinstry, assistant quartermaster, as “correct and just,” and 
that on the 31st of August, 1861, the said McKinstry paid the amount 
of the above bill to Pease, on his producing Kelsey’s receipt. The 
first item in the account is for 28,000 pounds of hay, which Kelsey 
testifies he never sold to Pease, or to the United States. The same 
is true in relation to the second item; the same in relation to the third 
itpm; and the same in relation to the fourth item of 3,000 bushels, 
of oats, at 25 cents per bushel, charged to have been sold on the 29th 
of July, the amount charged being $750. On the same day he sold 
to Pease 180 bags, 83 bags, and 36 bags of oats, amounting to 27,000 
pounds, at 23 cents per bushel—total amount, $106 05; but he sold 
no such amount as is charged in the voucher on that day. The next 
charge is 5,000 bushels of oats on the 4th of August, at 26 cents per 
bushel, amounting to $1,300, which he did not sell; but on the 2d of 
August he sold Pease 163 bags of oats, equal to 319-jf bushels, at 24 J 
cents per bushel. 

Thus it will appear from the testimony of Mr. Kelsey himself, that 
the voucher above set out is false in every particular. It seems that 
this fraud was accomplished by Pease in this way, as explained by the 
witness himself: 

“ One Saturday I had been up to his office to get some money, and 
that evening he came to my office just as I was closing up for the 
night,—it was just dark—and brought the voucher with him. He 
said he could not give me any money until he had got this voucher, 
for stuff which I had sold him, signed. It was so dark I could not 
look over the account to see whether or not it was correct. I did not 
see the amounts, but took it for granted that they were correct. I 
could just see indistinctly to write my name to the receipt, which I did. 

Question. How much money did he pay you at that time ? 

Answer. I think he gave me $1,000 the next Monday on account. 

Question. Did you not know anything in regard to the items which 
composed the account? 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. What was your idea about the matter when you signed 
the receipt? 

Answer. That it was a bill for articles sold, or a correct copy of a 
bill, and I did not consider it requisite to look it over. When you 


101 


showed it to me yesterday, it took me more by surprise than anything 
else; I did not consider it possible that I signed a receipt to such a 
voucher, but it turns out to be true. 

Question. Did you receipt the bill on the day the receipt was dated? 

Answer. I am satisfied I signed the receipt on Saturday evening, 
but whether it is dated correctly I cannot say. I could barely see the 
line to write my name upon it—at the dusk of the evening. 

Question. By this bill it appears that you have receipted to the 
United States $2,401 35 which does not belong to you? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it would not belong to me if I had got it, but I 
have not.” 

See further testimony of Kelsey, (page 959.) 

Kelsey thus having signed the receipt, Pease drew the amount of 
$2,401 35, which really had no connexion with the articles which he 
had bought from Kelsey, though on a subsequent Monday morning he 
paid Kelsey $1,000 on account. Your committee was satisfied that 
Kelsey was no party to the fraud, but was a victim of the imposition 
of Pease. 

John B. Valle (page 879) sold 10,000 gunny bags to the United 
States, through Pease, at 12 cents apiece. When the last payment 
was made, Pease requested that the bill should be made out to the 
United States for $1,300, instead of $ 1 , 200 —the difference of $ 100 , 
being the commission which Pease claimed in the matter. Pease 
said, “I only make $100 upon this matter, and I want you to give 
me a receipt for $1,300, and one for $ 1 , 200 .” Valle and his partner 
hesitated about signing a false voucher, but finally Pease told them 
that if they did not do it he would not settle at all. The receipt for 
$1,300 was signed and given to Pease, and he paid Valle only $1,200, 
and that in Missouri money, when he should have had gold. The 
difference between Missouri money and gold was from 10 to 15 per 
cent. 

This is the transaction: Pease bought the bags for $ 1 , 200 , got 
them into his possession, and then refused to pay the $ 1,200 until 
the parties should sign a receipt to the government for $1,300, the 
difference between the two amounts being the sum which he himself 
was to pocket. The action of Pease was openly and palpably fraudu¬ 
lent; and there is no excuse upon the part of Valle for signing this 
voucher, thus enabling Pease to defraud the government out of $100. 

CHILD, PRATT & FOX. 

The dealings of the quartermaster’s department at St. Louis, while 
in charge of Major McKinstry, with the firm of Child, Pratt & Fox 
were very extensive, amounting to more than $800,000 since the 
present difficulties broke out. This business was not confined to the 
particular kind of business in which that firm was engaged, who were 
hardware merchants, but extended to every variety of article and 
thing which the department had occasion to buy. In addition to 
their legitimate trade, these hardware merchants were called upon 


102 


to furnish blankets, shoes, overcoats, caps, pants, saddles, bridles, 
picket-pins, flannel, infantry suits, portable forges, felt hats, camp 
kettles, shirts, knapsacks, drawers, hatchets, saddle blankets, Ac., 
Ac. Indeed, whatever the service called for, it also seemed to 
require should be furnished by this firm. Nor were those articles 
purchased under any contract or stipulated price, but procured on 
open orders, and paid for at the prices charged, without questioning. 
In but two or three instances, and those of the most insignificant 
character, have the bills as to quality or price, in this large trade, 
approaching a million of dollars, been subjected to the slightest in¬ 
quiry. The perfectly unreserved manner in which the government 
was placed in the power of this firm is best described by its book¬ 
keeper, James P. Coghan, in answer to interrogatories put to him 
by the committee, page 860. 

‘ ‘ Question. Were those goods furnished under a general contract, or 
was the firm of Child, Pratt & Fox employed as the agent of the 
government in making the purchases ? 

Answer. 1 can answer that question in this w T ay only: that the 
orders came to our house from the quartermaster’s department— 
from McKinstry—and we filled the orders. 

Question. Did those requisitions simply mention the goods to be 
furnished ? 

Answer. They simply specified the articles, and we furnished 
them accordingly. 

Question. Was any contract made between your house and the 
quartermaster as to the price at which those articles, or any of them, 
should be furnished? 

Answer. None that I am aware of. 

Question. If there was any agreement as to the price at which 
they should be furnished made before the articles were furnished, you 
would probably have had a knowledge of it ? 

Answer. I would have known it. I know of no such contract. 

Question. From the time of commencing the delivery of these arti¬ 
cles up to this time has there been any agreement between the firm 
of Child, Pratt & Fox and any government officer connected w T ith the 
quartermaster’s department, fixing the price of these various articles? 

Answer. None that 1 am aware of. 

Question. If there had been any such contract it would have come 
to your knowledge? 

Answer. I would have known it. 

Question. Then, so far as between the government and the firm of 
Child, Pratt & Fox, the prices of these various articles which that 
house has been delivering to the government have not been fixed 
upon by the mutual action of the government upon the one hand and 
that firm upon the other? 

Answer. The prices have been fixed by the vouchers which we 
held, signed by Major McKinstry. He passed our bills and signed 
them. 

Question. When a requisition was made upon you, and your house 


103 


furnished the articles, did you designate in your account rendered the 
prices at which you furnished them? 

Answer. We did. 

Question. And sent the bills to the quartermaster’s office? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Were they submitted to Major McKinstry himself? 

Answer. They were sent to his office. 

Question. Were they submitted to him, or were they subject to the 
inspection of some subordinate of that department? 

Answer. They were examined by the chief clerk, or by the 
cashier, 

Question. Who certified to their correctness? 

Answer. The cashier and McKinstry signed them. 

Question. How would the chief clerk or McKinstry know whether 
the prices which were charged were proper prices? 

Answer. I cannot tell. 

Question. Did you generally submit those accounts to the quarter¬ 
master’s department yourself? 

Answer. I usually sent them there. 

Question. Was there ever any difference of opinion between your 
house and McKinstry, or his clerk, as to the price at which any of 
those articles should be furnished by you? 

Answer. Not that I know of, with one exception. When I was in 
McKinstry’s office, one night getting our accounts adjusted and put 
into the shape of vouchers, McKinstry cut down the price on a lot of 
pants from $4 to $3 65. 

Question. When was that? 

Answer. A month- ago. 

Question. How long was it before he left the quartermaster’s de¬ 
partment, or rather ceased to be assistant quartermaster in this city? 

Answer. Probably ten or twelve days. 

Question. Then up to that time, and with the exception of that 
single article, the prices as you had fixed them in the accounts you 
had rendered were universally accepted by Major McKinstry or his 
clerk ? 

Answer. Always. 

Question. Had you any conversation with Major McKinstry or his 
clerk as to the cost of those articles? 

Answer. Never. 

Question. Was it understood that you were to buy those articles 
and receive the ordinary mercantile commission? 

Answer. I do not know anything about that. 

Question. In furnishing these articles to the government what was 
the understanding between McKinstry, or his clerk, or any person 
acting for him, and this firm, as to the basis upon which the price of 
the various articles furnished should be fixed ? 

Answer. I do not know as there was any understanding as to the 
price. I should say there was not. 

Question. And the prices charged in your bills as rendered were 


104 


universally accepted and received, and certified to be correct, with 
the exception of the one instance to which you have referred? 

Answer. Yes, sir, so far as 1 know, with perhaps the further ex¬ 
ception of their deducting 15 cents each from the price of a lot of 
100 caststeel spades. 

Question. Do you remember any other articles on which they made 
a deduction? 

Answer. I do not.” 

In many instances those articles thus ordered and paid for at any 
price this firm was pleased to fix upon them, were purchased by them 
of their fellow merchants in St. Louis, within a stones throw of the 
quartermaster’s office, and turned immediately in to the government 
with an enormous profit added to the market price. Mechanics of 
the highest fcharacter and responsibility in the city of St. Louis, 
found the quartermaster buying of this firm articles of their own 
manufacture, at a price fifty per cent., seventy-five, one hundred, 
and, in some instances, three hundred per cent, higher than they 
themselves had offered to furnish them for, upon advertisement by 
the quartermaster. Some of these mechanics never heard of their 
proposals after they were given to Major McKinstry; those of others 
were rejected without explanation. But they afterwards, in many 
instances, manufactured the same articles for Child, Pratt, & Fox, at 
the prices at which they had offered to sell them to the goverment, 
and that firm resold them to the quartermaster at the enormous 
advance before stated. 

The committee quote from the testimony of business men of the 
highest character to show the shameful manner in which the public 
funds have been wasted in giving patronage to this firm. Giles F. 
Filley testifies, page 522: 

“Question. Have you furnished stoves, or any other articles which 
have gone to the use of the government, through third parties? 

Answer. Yes, sir. We have a contract now with third parties for 
camp-kettles and mess-pans—that is, we have orders for them. 

Question. State everything connected with that matter. 

Answer. About two months since, I should think, the house of 
Child, Pratt & Fox came to me for the purpose of getting camp- 
kettles and mess-pans, articles which are manufactured by us. Fox 
came to me and first said, “charge them directly to the government.” 
He then said, “charge them to us.” Afterwards he said, “I do not 
know, but you may as well charge them to the government.” Finally 
he said, “as the government is ordering these things from us, charge 
them over to us.” Of course we did so without knowing what they 
charged for them. We made them without charging much profit, 
supposing that they charged the government only what we charged 
them. 

Question. State at what price you made them. 

Answer. We made them by the pound, while they charged them 
to the government by the piece. 

Question. How much did you charge them ? 


105 


Answer. We charged about 13 J cents per pound for the kettles, and 
15 J cents for the mess-pans. Those prices equal about 42| cents each 
for the camp-kettles, and 27 J cents each for the mess-pans, on an 
average. I understand that this house charges the government 65 
cents for the camp-kettles and 35 cents for the mess-pans. We sub¬ 
sequently sent a letter to the quartermaster’s department, of which 
the following is a copy: 


“St. Louis, September 18 , 1861 . 

“Dear Sir: I learned this morning that you would shortly need a 
large number of camp-kettles and mess-pans. If they are to be the 
same size and weight as those now made for the army, which are of 
the best quality of charcoal sheet iron—No. 26 wire gauge—I will 
furnish them at the following prices, provided the order is given for, 
say, 2,000 camp-kettles and 5,000 mess-pans: 

“ Camp-kettles, at 42J cents each. 

“ Mess-pans, at 27J cents each. 

‘ ‘ Respectfully yours, 


General J. McKinstry.’ 


“ GILES F. FILLEY, 
1 By BELL. 


To that letter I received a reply, of which the following is a copy: 


“Office A. Q. M. General, Western Department, 

“>S7. Louis , September 18, 1861. 

“Sir: In reply to your offer to furnish ‘camp-kettles’ and ‘mess- 
pans,’ this department is not in want of any at this time. 
“Respectfully, 

“J. McKINSTRY, 

'■'A. Q. M. General. 

“H. W. G. CLEMENTS, 

‘ * Chief Clerk. 

“Mr. Giles F. Filley, 

11 St. Louis , Missouri” 


“Answer. I understand they did not have a special contract, but 
they had an open order to furnish everything. 

Question. Was that house engaged in the manufacture of those 
articles ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Then what reason, if any, can you give why they should 
have been ordered to furnish them? • • 

Answer. Well, sir, I suppose that McKinstry, the quartermaster, 
owed his appointment as much to Fox as to anybody. 

Question. How many of those articles have you furnished to Child, 
Pratt & Fox? 

Answer. In amount, to over $4,000 worth. 

Question. Upon those you have furnished, what is the difference 
in cost to the government between what you proposed to furnish 


106 

them for and what you understand they actually paid for them to 
Child, Pratt & Fox? 

Answer. Taking into consideration the difference between the 
Missouri money which we received and treasury notes which the gov¬ 
ernment pays, as well as the difference in price, and it would be over 
50 per cent.—about 55 per cent. 

Question. Do you know any reason, other than that you have 
already stated, why these artieles should have been purchased of the 
house of Child, Pratt & Fox, instead of directly from the manufac¬ 
turer, at the reduced price ? 

Answer. No, sir; except that Mr. Fox has been very intimate with 
the quartermaster. 

Question. Has it or has it not been a net loss to the government of 
that difference in price ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. State whether you were prepared to do and could have 
done the work which you proposed, and at the prices you proposed. 

Answer. We have actually done it for Messrs. Child, Pratt & Fox. 

Question. Do you know of any other contract which this house has 
made with any other parties for other articles ? 

Answer. They have a similar arrangement with my brother, in 
reference to articles which he manufactures. 

Question. What articles are they? 

Answer. Tin plates and cups.” 

Thus it appears that Quartermaster McKinstry paid this firm, and 
that, too, as their bookkeeper states, without the slightest question, 
a price fifty-five per cent, higher than the written offer of Mr. Filley, 
then before him. 

Thomas Hood testifies as follows, (page 746:) 

‘ ‘ Question. Where do you reside ? 

Answer. In St. Louis. 

Question. What is your business ? 

Answer. I am a blacksmith. 

Question. Have you made any picket-pins for the government? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Did you propose to make any ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. At what price ? 

. Answer. On the 19th of April I proposed to make 200 iron picket- 
pins at 25 cents each. 

Question. To whomjlid you make that proposal? 

Answer. To Major McKinstry. The following is a copy of the 
proposal: 

“St. Louis, Missouri , April 9, 1861. 

“ I propose to furnish the following articles, as per requisition of 
the 6th of April, 1861: 

“200 iron picket-pins, at 25 cents each. 

“50 wagon hammers, at 35 cents each. 


107 


‘‘50 king bolts, at 90 cents each. 

50 tongue bolts, at 40 cents each. 

“Yours, very respectfully, 

“THOMAS HOOD. 

“Major McKinstry, Brevet Major , A. Q. MM 

Question. What was done with your proposition? 

Answer. I sent it to Major McKinstry. 

Question. Did you hear from it afterwards ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you afterwards furnish any picket-pins for the gov¬ 
ernment? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Do you know of anybody that did? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Whom? 

Answer. Child, Pratt A Fox, of this city. 

Question. Do you know of other parties making pins for the gov¬ 
ernment under the contract of Child, Pratt A Fox? 

Answer. Child, Pratt A Fox had the contract, and other parties 
made the pins for them. 

Question. At what price did those parties make them for Child, 
Pratt A Fox ? 

Answer. I cannot testify from positive knowledge, but only from 
hearsay. 

Question. Could you have made them for 25 cents each ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know what Child, Pratt A Fox got for those 
they furnished ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Who made them for Child, Pratt A Fox? 

Answer. Pauley A Brother. 

Question. Do you know how many they made? 

Answer. One order they had was for 5,000; but I do not know 
whether or not they filled the order. 

Question. Are they still making them? 

Answer. They were up to two or three days since. 

Question. Did you accompany your bid with a specimen? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. Have you seen those made by Pauley A Brother? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. How do they compare in quality with those you offered 
to McKinstry for 25 cents each ? 

Answer, f would rather other parties should answer that question. 
Question. What is your own opinion upon it? 

Answer. I think mine are worth 25 cents more than theirs. 
Question. Were yours heavier and better made? 

Answer. Mine were longer than the ones I saw there. 

Question. Did you at any time put in any proposition to make any 
other articles ? 


108 


“Answer. Yes, sir.” 

From the testimony of Pascal P. Child, a clerk for the firm of 
Child, Pratt & Fox, page 838, a single question and answer are 
quoted. 

“Question. What did you charge the government for picket-pins? 

Answer. 75 cents each.” 

Thus it appears that three times the written offer of Hood was, 
voluntarily and without question, paid to this firm for an inferior 
article. James Blackman testifies, page 806, to offers of shoes for 
the army, made by him to McKinstry, of which no notice was taken 
by him while he was buying the same shoes through this firm, as 
appears by the testimony, at a very large advance. This is his state¬ 
ment: 

“Question. What is your business? 

Answer. I am a dealer in boots and shoes. 

Question. Have you made any offers to the government to supply 
the army with boots and shoes ? 

Answer. At the commencement of our difficulties, knowing that 
the government would want a large amount of shoes, I took some 
samples up to Major McKinstry, as persons in other departments of 
business were doing, and showed them to him and gave him the price. 
I went up there a short time since to get the samples, but while I 
found other shoes there I could not find mine; I thought if I could 
get them I would know, from the price marked upon them, exactly 
what I offered them for. . 

Question. When you made that proposal what kind of shoes did 
you take up as a sample ? 

Answer. I offered him what we call a lined and bound pegged welt 
shoe. It was a light shoe, such as we use for our trade here, and of 
which we sell a great many. It is not calculated for army purposes, 
but shoes being scarce, and we having some of those on hand, I made 
an offer of them, supposing that they would be obliged to take any¬ 
thing they could get that would answer the purpose. I believe I 
offered them at $1 25 per pair. That was our regular price for the 
shoe. The other shoe I offered was an unlined shoe of a low cut. 

Question. Were they fit for army purposes? 

Answer. Hardly; it was a common country shoe, and would not 
compare with the shoes we are now furnishing. It was a shoe of but 
one sole and a welt, while the shoes we are now furnishing have two 
soles. I offered that shoe at $1 30 per pair. I had another shoe 
which laced up in front, which had a welt and one sole, and that I 
offered at $1 40. 

Question. What was the result of your proposal? 

Answer. Those samples I placed upon Major McKinstry’s table, 
and told him I could furnish him any amount of them. We were 
prepared to furnish a large quantity, as we were dealing largely— 
probably doing as much in our line as any other firm in the State. 

Question. What is the name of your house ? 


10 !) 

Answer. J. S. Comstock & Co. My partner is about the oldest 
shoe dealer in the city. 

Question. Did you receive a contract or order to furnish any of 
these shoes ? 

Answer. Major McKinstry merely made the remark that he would 
examine them. 

Question. Have you at any time since dealt directly with the gov¬ 
ernment in furnishing shoes for the army ? 

Answer. I have sold to outside parties, who I presumed were fur¬ 
nishing shoes to the government. 

Question. To whom ? 

Answer. To Child, Pratt & Fox, of this city. I suppose they were 
for the government. At any rate they ordered goods from me, and 1 
filled the order. 

Question. How many shoes do you think you have furnished them ? 

Answer. Really I do not know that I can say ; somewhere between 
fifteen and twenty thousand pair. 

Question. At what price? 

Answer. I believe they paid me $1 25, $1 33J, and $1 41 per pair, 
according to the quality. 

Question. What was the character of the shoes? 

Answer. The $1 25 shoe was about such a shoe as 1 showed 
McKinstry at that price. 

Question. What were the others? 

Answer. I think they were about the same as I offered to McKinstry. 

Question. You sold to them, as far as prices and quality are con¬ 
cerned, at about the same rate that you offered to sell to the govern¬ 
ment? 

Answer. Yes, sir.’ 7 * 

The profits to Child, Pratt & Fox on this article are made to ap¬ 
pear from their vouchers, which may be found in the testimony, and 
from which it is shown that for nearly all the shoes purchased of that 
firm McKinstry paid $1 75, and for none less than $1 50. 

But it was not in price alone that the government was defrauded 
by this unnatural and unjustifiable connexion between this firm and 
the quartermaster’s department. The following extract from the 
testimony of John J. Witsig, (page 591,) will show how the soldiers 
in the field, as well as the treasury, were made to suffer that this 
firm might realize a magnificent fortune in making merchandise of 
the public calamities. It also shows with what shameful solicitude 
McKinstry himself sought to conceal the source of a palpable and 
gross fraud upon the government, if he did not prostitute his official 
position directly to its consummation. In what striking contrast stands 
out the noble answer of Mr. Filley to his insolence! 

“ Question. Dc you know of any persons having contracts with the 
government ? 

Answer. I know of some persons who have contracts, but I do not 
know the nature of their contracts. I had but one interview with 


110 


Major McKinstry, and that was about shoes which were furnished to 
Colonel Brand 7 s regiment—the Gtli Missouri. 

Question. State the circumstances of that interview. 

Answer. I happened to be at Pilot Knob one day, and seeing Colo¬ 
nel Brand’s men so poorly clothed, I made some remark, and he said 
everything furnished him was so poor and mean that the men were 
always barefooted and naked. Among other things, I requested him 
to give me a pair of shoes. He did so, and I had them opened by a 
shoemaker here. I showed the shoes, after they were ripped open, .to 
0. D. Filley. There was about three-eighths of an inch in thickness 
of wooden sole, covered over with a thin skin of leather on the out¬ 
side. Filley then insisted that I should go and show them to Major 
McKinstry. I did not want to go to him by myself, and so Mr. Filley 
went along. We there found out that the shoes had been furnished 
by Child, Pratt & Fox, but I never could find out the price at which 
they were sold. 

Question. What did McKinstry say? 

Answer. At first he was highly surprised that a private citizen 
should presume to meddle with the matter, and make inquiries about 
things which belonged to other men. He asked 0. I). Filley what 
business he had to meddle with the matter. Filley told him he was 
too old to fight for his country, but that he was yet young enough to 
watch the rascals who were cheating the men who were fighting for 
his country. 1 had the shoes under my arm, and Filley took them 
and opened the sole and showed them to Major McKinstry. McKin¬ 
stry immediately asked me by what authority I got the shoes. I told 
him I got them from Colonel Blood, by order of Colonel Brand, down 
at Pilot Knob. He then took the shoes, and half an hour 

afterwards they could not be found in the establishment. We 

had gone down there to see who furnished the shoes, and 0. 

D. Filley said : “Do not lose sight of the shoes, for I want 

them.” But McKinstry managed, in some way, to get between 
me and the shoes, and we never got them back. I then told 
McKinstry that I also had a sample of blankets furnished to the 
same regiment by the quartermaster. We did not know then 
who furnished the quartermaster with them. In going round, we 
found that Child, Pratt & Fox had furnished the shoes. One lot was 
furnished on the 16th of August and another on the 24th. As soon 
as we ascertained that, 0. D. Filley said to me : “Let us go down 
to Pratt’s and see what the charge for them was, as the quarter¬ 
master would not tell us what Child, Pratt & Fox had charged.” 
Before we started, Filley told me to get the shoes. I asked McKinstry 
where they were, and McKinstry said he did not know where they 
were, and nobody in the office had seen the shoes, except Filley, 
McKinstry, and myself. Filley said he was not to be outdone. 
McKinstry said, hunt for them, and that was all the satisfaction We 
got. Filley said he would go down to Pilot Knob the very same day, 
and get another lot of those shoes. He did so, but instead of one 
pair, the whole lot were sent back to this city a little ahead of him. 


As I have already said, before I left McKinstry’s office I told him I 
also had a sample of the blankets which had been furnished the same 
regiment. He asked me why in hell I did not bring that sample up. 
I told him it was a hot day and I was tired, and I thought I would 
make two trips of it and give him the blankets another time. He 
said he wanted the blanket immediately. I said : “You shall have 
it. ; I went down and sent the blanket up to Major McKinstry’s 
office by a friend of mine. When the man came to McKinstry’s door 
% he found a guard there ordered to receive the blanket. But at the 


same time I had ordered the man to deliver the blanket to McKinstry 
himself. He therefore came back with it. I went up with the blanket 
myself and tried to get in, but I could not. The guard at the door 
insisted on getting the blanket, as he had orders to get the blanket, 
but not to let me in. So I have the blanket yet, and I will send it to 
your committee. I am not a judge of the article, but I heard so much 
complaint that I got a sample from Bland. The blanket weighs more 
than is required. The objection is to the material 

Question. Had you been at the quartermaster’s office frequently 
before that? 


Answer. No, sir; I had been there but once. 

Question. Did you ever meet a guard at the door before ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Have you been there since, on business ? 

Answer. I have. I have occasion to go there every day. 

Question. Is a guard stationed at the door now ? 

Answer. J must confess that that was the only day that a guard 
was stationed at the door. The guard was a cavalry man, with his 
sword. He said that the blanket could come in, but that I could not; 
that the major was-busy. I had my own impression, that they 
wanted to do with the blanket as they had done with the shoes. 

Question. Do you know of whom the blankets were purchased ? 

Answer. As I could never see Major McKinstry afterwards I never 
could find out from him from whom the blankets were purchased. 0. 
D. Filley and I immediately went down to Child, Pratt & Fox to find 
out what they had sold the blankets for. Fox took us up stairs and 
spoke to the bookkeeper. The bookkeeper said it would be a long 
and tedious job to find out at what price they sold them. I told him I 
would help him a little about dates, and told him one lot was furnished 
on the 16th of August, and another lot on the 24th, according to the 
quartermaster’s books. He turned over the leaves of his book for 
half an hour, but could not find the dates. Then 0. I). Filley asked 
me what time it was. We found that it was half past ten, and at 
half past eleven Filley had to go down to find out something further 
about the shoes, and Fox said he would let me know what I desired 
the next day. But he never had time to tell me at what price the 
blankets were sold. 

Question. What made you go to Child, Pratt & Fox about the 
blankets? 

Answer. They did not deny but that they had sold the blankets. 


112 


Question. Please state where you got the blanket which you have 
produced here to-day. 

Answer. At Ironton, Missouri. 

Question. State the circumstances under which you obtained it. 

Answer. I was out at Ironton one day with Captain Smith and another 
gentleman ; it was a hot day. and I had my coat upon my arm. 1 
met several soldiers with blankets over their shoulders. I asked them 
if they were sick. They raised their blankets and showing me theii^ 
bare backs, said they had nothing else to cover themselves with. 

Question. They had pantaloons ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; but the holes were so large there was no need 
of unbottoning them. That is the fact. And then they said the 
blankets were mean at that. I took hold of one of the blankets and 
saw that they were very poor. The very next morning I told Colonel 
Blood, of the sixth Missouri regiment, that he ought not to receive 
those blankets. He then told me that he had to take them or nothing. 
Then, after I had made some other remarks, he said he wished I 
would take one of those blankets up to the quartermaster, as he had 
written to him, McKinstry, a great many times and could get no 
answer. He asked me if I would make it my business to show one of 
them to Major McKinstry, that he might see what they were. I told 
him I would do so. He then gave me an order upon Lieut. Colonel 
Blood for a blanket, and that blanket is the one which I produce here 
now. In my testimony before the committee yesterday I explained 
my efforts to get the blanket to Major McKinstry."' ’ 

To secure to this firm this monopoly, by which immense private 
fortunes were taken from the public treasury, all provisions of law 
and army regulations, requiring advertisement for proposals, and the 
contracting with the lowest bidder to furnish these articles, were 
totally disregarded, and the most unblushing system of favoritism and 
exclusiveness established that ever disgraced the service.* Mechanics, 
with the products of their industry, freely offered to the government 
at fair and barely remunerative prices, were driven from the doors of 
the quartermaster’s office, and compelled to sacrifice their products 
to this firm, only to see them turned over at exorbitant prices to 
that official who had denied them the poor satisfaction of receiving at 
the hands of the government a fair equivalent for the articles they 
furnished. By this system, every branch of industry whose products 
were in any way necessary to the department of the west was made 
to pay tribute to the firm of Child, Pratt & Fox. The profits made 
by this firm out of the United States by enjoying this monopoly were 
enormous. Coghan, its bookkeeper, admitted in his testimony (see 
page 868) that it would reach thirty-five per cent., which, upon a 
trade of $800,000, secures the princely fortune of $280,000, a tax 
upon the treasury of the United States which nothing but the most 
controlling reasons of military necessity would ever justify. So far 
as the examinations of the committee threw any light upon this ques¬ 
tion of profits, they were led to believe that the sum was much larger 
than is here admitted. But this sum is enough to call for explana¬ 
tion from those to whom the funds of the government are intrusted. 


113 


When the public credit has been strained to its utmost tension, and 
the patriotism of the capitalist appealed to for means to meet the 
exigencies that press upon the government, the country has a right 
to know why this enormous amount has been diverted from legitimate 
expenditure into the pockets of private individuals. The committee 
have sought in vain for any satisfactory explanation. They regret to 
believe that none exists. It appeared that much of this expenditure, 
and that where the largest profits were paid, was upon articles which, 
without the slightest difficulty, the quartermaster could have obtained 
at first hand of the mechanics, manufacturers, and furnishers of St. 
Louis and its vicinity. This he persistently refused to do. This firm 
would buy of its neighbor across the street, and then sell at the most 
extravagant advance to the quartermaster the very articles which that 
official had refused to purchase of those who made or furnished them, 
and that not in solitary instances, or through inadvertence, but so 
constantly that it became the rule of the office, and with a knowledge 
that this firm was thereby plundering the government. So open and 
gross had this practice come to be that it is as difficult to reconcile it 
with honesty as it is with economy. It was notorious that the junior 
member of this firm, Mr. Fox, had visited Washington and personally 
taken an active part in securing the restoration of McKinstry to the 
quartermaster’s department at St. Louis, from which he had before, 
for some reason, been removed, and that these enormous profits in 
trade by the firm of which he was a member with that department 
began to be realized after his active interference had been supposed 
to contribute to the reappointment of McKinstry as its head. He 
had, while his firm was enjoying this monopoly of trade with Mc¬ 
Kinstry, contributed. $200 towards the presentation of a service of 
plate to Mrs. McKinstry, which cost over $3,000, and to which con¬ 
tractors were told, by those soliciting contributions, that if they did 
not contribute they “would have trouble in collecting their dues from 
the government.” He also contributed $300 towards the horses and 
carriage presented to Mrs. Fremont, had a brother-in-law in the quar¬ 
termaster’s office under McKinstry, and a brother a contractor to 
furnish horses for that department, in whose behalf he procured of 
McKinstry twenty-five dollars on each horse more than the original 
contract price. His influence at the office of McKinstry was most 
potential, and of that he made merchandise in a manner most gross 
and venal. His presence there was as constant as that of the em¬ 
ployes themselves. The relation which was thus built up and nursed 
through him between the firm of which he was a member and the 
quartermaster’s department under McKinstry became an offence to 
all honesty, a serious reproach and damage to the public service. Is 
the government without redress ? The committee think not. 

This profuse and reckless expenditure of the public money fre¬ 
quently exhausted the funds in that department, and seriously im¬ 
paired the public credit. On the 22d of October, as appears by 
the testimony of McKinstry’s cashier, Hahn, (page 774,) the depart¬ 
ment still owed Child, Pratt & Fox, according to their accounts as 
then rendered, the sum of $390,000. It must be borne in mind that 
8 


114 


this was for goods furnished not upon any contract price, but for just 
such prices as that firm chose to charge for them, and that without 
any previous agreement. Some of the orders themselves stipulated 
that “a fair mercantile profit” was to be allowed to the contractor, 
but still leaving him to determine what shall constitute such profit-. 
The following is a copy of one among many of a similar import: 

“Headquarters, Quartermaster’s Department, 

“ St. Louis , September 2, 18G1. 

“Mr. E. W. Fox will furnish quartermaster’s department thirty 
thousand army overcoats, to be made of the best army material, and 
conform to army regulations and requirements. The exact cost of 
material, manufacture, and transportation to be furnished to this de¬ 
partment, upon which the quartermaster will allow a fair mercantile 
profit to the contractor, E. W. Fox. 

“J. McKINSTRY, 

‘ ‘ Major and Quartermaster . 

“A true copv : 

“H. W.' G. Clements, Chief Cleric.” 

Therefore no considerations of law or good faith require the gov¬ 
ernment to pay this firm one dollar of that balance now due, beyond 
what shall constitute a fair and reasonable market price for the goods 
thus furnished by them. The intelligent and upright quartermaster 
now in charge of that department, who has been many years in that 
branch of the public service, Major Allen, testified that ten per cent, 
beyond the first cost would be an extravagant profit to be allowed 
this firm upon its trade with that department. If this amount be de¬ 
ducted from the thirt} T -five per cent, which the firm admits to have 
been its profits charged, then there would still remain $252,000 of 
unreasonable and extravagant charges of profits by this firm, which 
no principles of law, equity, or good faith require the government to 
pay. Let that much at least be saved. 

DIVERSION OF MONEYS FROM THE PAYMASTER’S DEPARTMENT, FOR WHICH 
THEY WERE APPROPRIATED. 

Your committee, learning that a portion of the sums of money ap¬ 
propriated by Congress for the specific purpose of paying the troops 
had been diverted, by order of Major General Fremont, took the 
testimony on that subject of Colonel T. P. Andrews, the deputy pay¬ 
master general in the United States army, stationed at St. Louis. 
Colonel Andrews has been in the service for forty years, and has dis¬ 
charged every duty imposed upon him with unsurpassed fidelity. 
Your committee desire to call particular attention to the testimony of 
Colonel Andrews, exhibiting as it does a flagrant and wanton violation 
of law and exercise of power by the major general commanding the 
department. His order to Colonel Andrews, as the deputy paymaster 
general, to pay the requisition for funds disbursed at the recruiting 
office of Captain Schwartz’s battery, being for advertisements, posters, 
stationery, runner’s wages, rent, <fcc., was in defiance of law and 


115 


army regulations, and not justifiable on any possible ground of neces- 
sity. They were expenditures of that character which, if payable by 
the government at all, no paymaster of the army had any right to 
pay; but they were chargeable to another and distinct fund. No 
officer charged with the disbursement of funds of a particular de¬ 
partment has any right whatever to divert those funds to any other 
channel; and if he do so, he does it in violation of law, and at his own 
peril. 

After testifying in relation to the original presentation of the ac¬ 
count of Captain Schwartz, Colonel Andrews continues : 

“The account was not properly presented to our department. 

Question. Was it within the provision of law that you should pay 
such an account as that? 

Answer. It was not, nor in any regulation or authority I had from 
any source. 

Question. You had neither in law,'army regulations, or orders, au¬ 
thority to pay it ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Relate what transpired in relation to that account. 

Answer. I stated to the person who first presented it that I had no 
authority whatever to pay such an account, and that I should violate 
everything like propriety if I paid it. Two or three days afterwards 
the account was presented to me with a peremptory order from 
General Fremont to pay it. Supposing that he labored under some 
misapprehension, I told the person who presented it that I would go 
and see General Fremont upon the subject and explain the matter to 
him. 

Question. Who was the person who presented it? 

Answer. Captain Schwartz. As I was about leaving the room to 
go and see General Fremont, Captain Zagonyi, the captain of the 
body guard, and who had come in with the bearer of the account, 
said he had an order in his pocket from General Fremont to arrest me 
and place me in the custody of Colonel McNeill, who commanded the 
home guard and prison in the city, unless I paid the account imme¬ 
diately. I asked him to give me the order as my justification for 
yielding to force and for passing the account. He declined doing 
that, but said that I might take a copy. I commenced to make a 
copy; but he then said that as the order was not to be executed un¬ 
less I refused to pay the account instantly, he could not let me copy 
it, but said I might take a memorandum or note of it. I told him 
that was the same thing, and I took a note of it in the following- 
words : 

“ Captain Charles Zagonyi called on me with Captain A. Sclnvartz 
and showed me General Fremont’s order of this date, ordering him, 
if I did not pay the within account to Captain Schwartz, to arrest me 
and place me in the custody of Colonel McNeill, commanding the 
home guard in this city, for confinement.” 

Question. What did you do then ? 

Answer. I thereupon paid the account. 


116 

Question. Was Captain Zagonyi accompanied to your office by a file, 
of soldiers on that occasion? 

Answer. He was fully armed himself, and I understood that he had 
a file of six or eight soldiers near by to assist in executing the order. 

Question. Did you yield to this force ? 

Answer. I did and obeyed the order. 

Question. What did you do after having paid the account? 

Answer. I reported the circumstances to the head of my depart¬ 
ment, Colonel Larned, at Washington, and asking to be relieved from 
the station.” 

Thus it appears that the deputy paymaster general of the United 
States, in the legal, faithful, and conscientious discharge of his official 
duty, having declined to pay a requisition on his department which 
was glaringly illegal, was ordered to be put under arrest and placed 
in custody of the commander of the home guard 11 for confinement .” 
It is perhaps to be regretted that Colonel Andrews yielded to this 
force and paid the illegal demand, instead of suffering himself to be 
arrested. But, in obeying the order, he was undoubtedly influenced 
by the highest and best motives. 

But there is another and further transaction in this connexion which 
is of a character still more unjustifiable and alarming, and which, in 
the judgment of the committee, deserves the severest reprehension. 
It is explained as follows by Colonel Andrews: 

“Question. What further transactions, if any, have you had? 

Answer. Before that transaction I received a message from General 
Fremont to call on him. I was then out of funds, and he was ex¬ 
ceedingly anxious to have a regiment paid that was about leaving the 
city. I did not think it at all important, or that the regiment had 
any pressing claim for payment. But he insisted upon it, and wished 
me to raise money in St. Louis. I told him I could not do it; that I 
had no credit, and scarcely any acquaintance with the moneyed men 
here. The result of the interview was that he requested me to send 
the assistant treasurer of the United States to him. I saw the treas¬ 
urer, and sent him to General Fremont. The next morning his adju¬ 
tant general asked me to step into his office. On doing so he handed 
me an order, which I did not read, but of which he told me the con¬ 
tents, which were that I was to go to the treasury and demand 
$100,000 from the treasurer of the public funds which were there, 
which belonged to the Secretary of the Treasury, and if he did not 
yield to the demand, the same order would furnish me with a regiment 
of troops to go and take it. I handed the order back to the adjutant 
general, Captain Kelton, of the regular army, without reading it, and 
begged him not to insist on my taking it. I told him I would go and 
see the treasurer, or his cashier, and try to obtain a credit from him 
for one-half of a remittance on its way, as I believed, from Washing¬ 
ton, of $200,000 for me. I saw the cashier, and as he had received a 
notice, as well as myself, of the remittance, he credited me with 
$100,000, and the order was, therefore, never executed. I would like 
to add that I told the adjutant general that I would not execute the 


117 


order if given to me, but would try to obtain the money if I could, 
on the strength of the notice which I and the treasurer had of the 
coming of the remittance. ” 

The extraordinary character of this order will be more fully com¬ 
prehended when it is understood that there was no pretence of any 
military or other necessity to justify such an outrage, and that Gen¬ 
eral Fremont had no more right in that case to order the government 
money in the vaults of the sub-treasury, at St. Louis, to be seized, 
than the commander of the department at Washington would have to 
order a regiment of soldiers to break into the public chest in the 
treasury building, and take whatever sum of money that might there 
be found, under any pretence he might choose to assign. 

Further attention is called to the testimony of Colonel Andrews, 
and particularly to that part of it containing copies of the orders for 
the illegal transfer of funds belonging to the pay department to other 
purposes; and also the order of General Fremont to pay “Brigadier 
General Asboth, United States volunteers,” the full pay and emolu¬ 
ments of a regular brigadier general of the United States army, when 
it was understood that the said Asboth held no such appointment from 
the President of the United States. 

The general order making the announcement of the staff of the 
major general commanding the department is to be found in the tes¬ 
timony of Colonel Andrews. Though in the army for nearly forty 
years, he w r as unable to fix the status of the “musical director/* the 
“ adlatus to the chief of staff ,” the “military registrator and expe¬ 
ditor,” the “postal director,” or “ the police director,” as designated 
in the said order.—(See testimony of Colonel T. P. Andrews, pages 
612 and 613.) 

SHIPMENT OF ICE FROM ST. LOUIS TO JEFFERSON CITY. 

On the 3d of October, 1861, General Fremont made a requisition 
for five hundred tons of ice, to be sent from St. Louis to Jefferson 
City, which was promptly filled by Dr. Alexander, the medical pur¬ 
veyor at St. Louis. The cost of the ice was $4,500, besides the cost 
of transportation. There appears to have been no fraud connected 
with the ordering of this ice, but the transaction shows the reckless¬ 
ness and extravagance which prevailed in the department, even in 
the smaller matters. Dr. Wells, the intelligent post surgeon at 
Jefferson City, was not consulted at all in relation to the necessity of 
ice being sent to that port. He testifies on the subject as follows: 

Question. Was there any medical necessity for sending such a 
quantity of ice to Jefferson City? 

AnsAver. Not the least. I had, as post surgeon, bought an ice¬ 
house with its contents; 1 do not know how much, but, from a rough 
estimate, enough, I supposed, to supply the hospital. I ordered the 
hospital steAvard to issue 50 pounds of ice a day from that ice-house— 
enough for hospital purposes. 


118 

Question. State your opinion as to there being any necessity for 
any more ice for the hospital. 

Answer. I do not think there Avas any necessity for sending for 
any more ice. I do not think the sick required any more ice than 
we had on hand. I thought the supply of ice on hand Avould be suffi¬ 
cient, with proper economy, to answer all demands upon it. 

* * * * * * * * * 

Question. Was any consultation had with you, as post surgeon at 
Jefferson City, in relation to the necessity for this ice? 

AnsAA T er. None whatever. 

Question. Was it not proper that you should be consulted about it? 

Answer I should think so. 

Question. If application had been made to you, Avhat would have 
been your advice ? 

AnsAver. I should have advised not to send it. 

Question. What is going to become of that ice? 

AnsAver. I presume it Avill melt. That which cannot be got into 
the ice-houses must melt very soon. 

Question. And be a total loss to the government? 

Answer. Of course. I cannot say positively that the ice Avas in¬ 
tended for Jefferson City. 

Question. Would it be practicable to carry that ice along with the 
army? 

' Answer. It Avould require a vast number of teams to take along 
500 tons. 

Question. Have you had any directions, or heard of any directions 
being given, to send that ice out after the army? 

Answer. No, sir. 

UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF TROOPS. 

During the sittings of the committee in St. Louis they learned 
that the 39th regiment of Illinois volunteers, better known perhaps 
as the “Yates Phalanx/’ had been ordered to be removed from Ben¬ 
ton barracks, in St. Louis, to Williamsport, in the State of Maryland. 
This regiment had been mustered into the service at Chicago, and 
Avas ordered icest from Chicago, to join General Fremont at St. 
Louis, at an expense of from six to seven thousand dollars. As con¬ 
nected with the contract for the transportation of the regiment, your 
committee deemed it a duty to make some inquiry in relation to its 
transfer from St. Louis to the east , Avhen at the same time it was 
understood that other regiments Avere going from east to west. It 
appears from the testimony of Captain McKeever, the assistant 
adjutant general on the staff of General Fremont, that on or 
about the 25th of October, Ward II. Lamon, esq., arrived in St. 
Louis. Captain McKeever understood that he Avas the same gen¬ 
tleman aa 7 1io held the office of United States marshal for the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, (see McKeever 7 s testimony, page 1051.) About 
the same time, Captain McKeever received a note from Colonel 
Eaton, military secretary of General Fremont, stating that the gene- 


119 


ral wished him (McKeever) to order the 39th Illinois regiment to 
proceed to Virginia, to join “General Lamon 7 s brigade.” Mr. 
Lamon (who then had on the uniform of a brigadier general) told 
Captain McKeever that he had four regiments in his brigade, and 
that he was to receive a commission of brigadier general; that his 
mission to St. Louis was to get an order from General Fremont for 
the removal of this regiment, which McKeever understood him to 
say had been promised some time before by the President. The fol¬ 
lowing is a copy of the order: 

“Special Orders, } Headquarters Western Department, 

“No. j St. Louis , Jib., October 26, 1861. 

“The 39th Illinois volunteers, Colonel Light, is relieved from duty 
in this department, to serve in General Lamon!s brigade in Western 
Virginia. The regiment will proceed to Williamsport, Maryland, 
taking three days 7 cooked rations. 

********* 

‘ 1 By order of Major General Fremont. 

“ CHAUNCEY McKEEVER, 

“ Assistant Adjutant General. 

“Official: Adjutant General’s Office, December 5, 1861. 

“GEO. D. RUGGLES, 

11 Assistant Adjutant General .” 

The cost of the transportation of this regiment from St. Louis to 
Williamsport, Captain McKeever said, would be somewhere about 
thirty thousand dollars, and that he knew no object to be accom¬ 
plished by the transfer except to give “General Lamon 77 an addi¬ 
tional regiment to till up his brigade. In answer to the inquiries of 
the committee, the Secretary of War states that there is no law 
authorizing any commander of a department to send troops to other 
departments without special orders from the Secretary of War or the 
commander-in-chief, and that, consequently, the removal of the thirty- 
ninth Illinois regiment was made without proper authority. The Sec¬ 
retary also states that his “department is not informed of the mili¬ 
tary or other reasons that existed for the transfer of the said regi¬ 
ment as aforesaid. 77 —(See letters of the Secretary of War, Appen¬ 
dix “I. 77 ) 

Edward H. Castle, who, at this time, had charge of the railroad 
transportation in the western department, states that on Saturday 
evening, the 26th of October, Mr. Lamon was introduced to him as a 
brigadier general from Washington, and that he was “wearing the 
dress of such a military officer. 77 His object was to have Castle send 
him the next day (Sunday) by special express train from St. Louis to 
Springfield, Illinois, at the expense of the government. Castle was, 
apparently, very much flattered in being introduced to so high a 
dignitary as a brigadier general, all the way from Washington to St. 
Louis. He ordered an engine and car for the express purpose of not 


120 


only taking Mr. Larnon to Springfield, but several of liis friends. 
In going from St. Louis west to see General Fremont, Castle pro¬ 
vided that Mr. Lamon should not only go free of expense, but 
he directed his express messenger to “show him attention and con¬ 
tribute to his comfort.” It turns out, from the letter of the Secre¬ 
tary of War, that this gentleman, who proclaimed himself a briga¬ 
dier general, and who was wearing the insignia belonging to that dis¬ 
tinguished rank, had no such appointment. All such pretences were 
unfounded, and, as your committee understand, was also the pretence 
that the President had told him that he might take this regiment. He 
seems to have made use of his official position as marshal for the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, and his assumed position as a brigadier general, to 
secure his object of removing the regiment, and in travelling in 
special trains at public expense. Your committee believe, with Cap¬ 
tain McKeever, that the removal of the regiment had no other object 
except the gratification of Mr. Lamon. But at such a time as this, 
when every dollar in the treasury is needed to crush out the rebel¬ 
lion, they submit that the sum of thirty thousand dollars is too large 
a sum to be expended for the purpose of flattering the vanity of any 
single individual. The removal of the regiment was not only with¬ 
out authority of law, but was inexpedient and without justification. 
Thirty thousand dollars of the public money has been worse than 
squandered in this transaction, which should receive unqualified con¬ 
demnation. Mr. Lamon had no authority whatever to travel in 
special trains at the public expense, and he should be called upon 
to refund the amount paid for the special train which took him and 
his friends from St. Louis to Springfield. If he shall not do so, the 
proper accounting officers of the treasury should ascertain what that 
amount is, and deduct the same from his salary as marshal of the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia. 

It may be stated in this connexion that it is believed by your com¬ 
mittee that there have been great abuses, in the military service, in 
the system of granting railroad passes, and that the government has 
been put to unjustifiable expense in transporting people who had no 
claim upon it whatever. It is an abuse which should be speedily 
corrected. 


ROTTEN AND CONDEMNED BLANKETS. 

Edward M. Davis is an assistant quartermaster United States army, 
and was a member of the staff of General Fremont. The son of this 
assistant quartermaster, Henry C. Davis, a young man of twenty-two 
years of age, and a clerk in a store in Philadelphia, sent samples of 
some blankets to St. Louis, in consequence of which General Fremont 
himself gave an order to Quartermaster Davis for some twelve or 
fourteen thousand dollars’ worth of them. On their arrival at St. 
Louis word was sent to Captain Davis that the blankets were rotten. 
A board of survey was appointed, consisting of three regular army 
officers, to-wit: Captain Hendershott, Captain Haines, and Captain 
Turnley, and the following is a copy of the report of the board of 
survey: 


121 


“St. Louis, Mo., September 5, 18G1. 

“The board met pursuant to the above order, present all the mem¬ 
bers, and examined the blankets presented by the chief quartermaster 
of the department as received from Henry C. Davis. The bills of 
the blankets were also presented. 

“ The board examined three different kinds of blankets from the bales 
presented for their inspection, and found them all rotten, and one 
kind made partially of cotton; and the board is of the opinion that the 
blankets are all entirely unfit for issue to troops, and should not be 
received by the United States at the prices indicated by the bills, or, 
indeed, at any price, as they are considered valueless for service. 77 

After this report was made, Captain Davis made such representa¬ 
tions to General Fremont, in regard to the action of the board, that 
a resurvey was ordered by the general. The same board reassem¬ 
bled, and Captain Hendershott and Captain Haines reported that they 
reaffirmed their former report, and that, in “the opinion of the board, 
the blankets are all unfit for issue to the troops, being all of a quality 
inferior in strength, warmth, and durability to the blankets usually 
issued to soldiers. 77 

One of the board, Captain Turnley, the assistant quartermaster 
United States army, who impressed your committee as being a faith¬ 
ful, vigilant, and competent public officer, modified his former report, 
and put his reasons on record, as follows: 

“I do not entirely agree with the preceding views expressed. The 
blankets are thin, light, and inferior to the usual army blanket; are 
made ( not of all wool) but half wool and half cotton. One blanket 
will not answer the soldier, but two at least should be supplied, and 
•even then should be lined with cloth. These blankets, however, range 
from $1 45 down to $1 18 per blanket, while the usual army blanket 
is from $3 75 to $4 each. 1 consider these blankets cheap , and also 
as good an article as can be had at the price. The troops need the 
supplies. Have not time to get the best. I recommend the blankets 
be issued at the rate of one pair to each man, of the higher price and 
heaviest, and three blankets to the man of the lighter one. 77 

The suggestions offered by Captain Turnley met the approbation 
of the general commanding, and the blankets were taken and paid for. 

But the testimony discloses that an extraordinary and most dis¬ 
graceful fraud was practiced in this connexion. In presenting his 
dissenting views, Captain Turnley laid great stress upon the fact that 
the blankets were cheap, ranging from $1 45 down to $1 18 per 
blanket. When the board convened for a resurvey, the bills of pur¬ 
chase were before it, which Captain Turnley says came by mail from 
Philadelphia, and he thinks were handed to him in General Fremont 7 s 
office by Captain Davis. Instead of being the bills rendered to the 
United States by H. C. Davis, who sold the blankets, and which 
were paid for, they were the original bills rendered to the said H. 
C Davis by the merchants of whom he purchased. The bill of Davis 
to the United States is set out in Capt. Turnley 7 s.testimony, (page 
788,) where it will be seen the prices ranged from $3 85 down to 


122 


%2 37 a blanket. Here is what Captain Turnlev says in his testimony 
in regard to this matter. The bill rendered by H. C. Davis to the 
United States was handed him by the committee, and he was asked 
the following 

“Question. Is that the bill which you had before you upon your 
second examination, and upon which you based your report? 

Answer. That is not the bill I saw. 

Question. By whom was the bill which you saw upon that occasion 
given to you ? 

Answer. It came by mail from Philadelphia, and I think it was 
handed to me in General Fremont’s office. 

Question. By whom? 

Answer. By Captain Davis. I know it was handed to me by some 
one in the office as my criterion to go by. 

Question. I see that the first charge in this bill which has been 
submitted to you is “ 200 brown gray blankets, at $3 25.” That is 
so much per blanket, and not so much per pair. Can you explain 
that ? 

Answer. The bill rendered to me was not in that shape. In the 
original bill it was so much per pair. 

Question. If this bill had accompanied the invoice of blankets, 
would those blankets have passed your inspection, and would you 
have made the recommendation you did in regard to them ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Was there another and different bill from this before you 
at that time ; and if so, in what did it differ? 

Answer. The bills submitted to us were composed of five or six 
bill heads of the houses from whence the blankets came. Those I 
examined, and I found the blankets very cheap, and on that account 
principally I dissented from the opinion of a majority of the board. 

Question. Were you made aware of the fact that H. C. Davis, who 
was selling these blankets to the government, was a son of Captain 
E. M. Davis, of General Fremont’s staff? 

Answer. No, sir. I saw that the names were the same, but it did 
not suggest itself to me to make any inquiries. I had not satis¬ 
factorily ascertained that Captain Davis was an officer of the army, 
and I supposed that if he was he knew he could have nothing to do- 
with the matter one way or the other. * * * * * 

Question. I desire to call your attention once more to the matter 
of the blankets. In the original paper which you have submitted to 
the committee as the proceedings of the second board of inspection, 
I find interlined, in blue pencil mark, over the word “blanket,” in 
the sentence “range from $1 45 down to $1 18 per blanket” in your 
recommendation the figures $3 54. Can you explain that interlinea¬ 
tion? 

Answer. The interlineation, in blue pencil mark, of the figures 
$3 54, I know nothing about, and they were inserted by some per¬ 
son unknown to me. 

Question. Your understanding, then, was that these blankets were 


123 

to be put in to the government at prices ranging from $1 45 down to 
$1 18 each? 

Answer. Yes. sir ; and that was the reason why I considered them 
very cheap. 

Question. And the lowness of the price was the only reason why 
you recommended that they should be accepted and distributed ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Please again look at the voucher for these blankets, as 
settled for by the government with H. C. Davis, and certified to as a 
true copy by Captain E. M. Davis, and state whether the bills pre¬ 
sented to you at the time the board reassembled w r ere in accordance 
with that voucher, or whether the bills presented to you were for a 
higher or lower price ? * 

Answer. The copy of voucher for blankets of H. C. Davis, of Au¬ 
gust 14 and August 16, does not contain the prices of the blankets 
examined by me, and referred to in the proceedings of the board of 
survey which I have presented. 

Question. In what respect do they differ? 

Answer. This voucher contains higher prices for the blankets. The 
prices in this voucher are much higher than the prices contained in 
the bills presented to me upon the board of survey. 

Question. After the first meeting of the board of survey upon 
these blankets, and its report, did you call upon anybody and request 
the privilege of re-examining those blankets, or were you applied to 
for that purpose ? 

Answer. I was applied to for that purpose, and expressed a willing¬ 
ness to do so. After being told that we examined wrappers instead 
of blankets, I was anxious to examine the blankets again. 

Question. But you made no application in the beginning for the 
privilege. 

Answer. None whatever, that I recollect. 

Question. Was it true that the examination of the board in the first 
instance was confined to the wrappers merely? 

Answer. It was not; it is true that in the first examination they 
did not go into the centre of the bales generally, blankets near the 
outside being easier to pull out. I must say I am surprised at the hill 
of blankets which you present me 

Thus it appears that when the trouble arose in regard to the blank¬ 
ets, and Captain Davis, taking advantage of his official position, had 
obtained a resurvey, the grossest deception and fraud was practiced, 
in placing before the board different bills from the bill rendered to 
the United States. For instance, the government paid H. C. Davis 
$3 85 for a blanket, for which he undoubtedly paid no more than 
$1 45, and yet the board was made to believe that it only cost the 
government this last named sum of $1 45. That would leave a profit 
of $2 40 on a blanket costing the sum of $1 45. There is no doubt 
on the minds of your committee that Edward M. Davis, an assistant 
quartermaster of the United States army, while acting in his 
capacity as such quartermaster, and bound by every consideration of 


124 


honor and public duty to protect the interests of the government, 
which he was paid for serving, and the protection of which he was 
enjoying, was a party to this fraud. He obtained the order from the 
general commanding to buy blankets, and he sent the order to his 
son, because he thought his son “could make a profit, as well.as any¬ 
body else, in the matter.” He must have known the prices his 
son paid for them, for he put into Captain Turnley’s hands the bills 
showing the amount his son paid to the parties of whom he bought; 
and he must have known the quality, for he bought bj^ sample. He 
knew the price which was paid for the blankets by the government, 
as he paid the amount himself, and certified it as “correct and just.” — 
(Page 788.) He must have known, also, that blankets only costing 
from $1 45 down to $1 18 were unfit for the troops to use, and that 
they must necessarily be deficient in strength, warmth, and dura¬ 
bility. 

Your committee believe that an officer of the army thus connected 
with a fraud upon his own department is .unworthy of the position 
he holds, and that when the facts become known he will be relieved 
from the service. 


THE ROOFING OF BENTON BARRACKS. 

Mr. J. B. Cristy, a practical roofer, and a responsible man, made a 
proposition for roofing the buildings then about to be erected for 
barracks near the fair grounds in St. Louis. He put in his proposi¬ 
tion to do the work in one of four ways. No notice whatever was 
taken of it, and the job was given to another party—a man by the 
name of Almon Thomson, who figures extensively in the horse con¬ 
tracts. The price he obtained was $3 50 a square of 100 feet, and 
for precisely the same kind of roofing that Cristy had agreed to put 
on for $2 50 a square of 100 feet, in his proposition, of which no 
notice was taken. The pretences that Cristy could not do the work, 
or give the security for the performance of the contract, were un¬ 
founded. It is apparent from the testimony that there were other 
reasons, and that at least one man connected with the quartermaster’s 
department was using his position to defraud the government. This 

man was-Ogden, the architect, who was proposing to sell out 

the contract to the man who would pay him the most; and in the 
proposed arrangement the amount that Ogden would get would come 
directly out of the government. It is in evidence that Ogden made 
two agreements to sell the giving out of the contract—the first to 
Henry Clapp, for his draft on McKinstry for $700, drawn in favor of 
a stool-pigeon by the name of P. L. Beirce, and the second to William 
S. King, for the larger sum of $1,450, by the same kind of draft. 
In King’s case Ogden himself drew the form of a draft for King to 
sign. King, in his testimony, states that Ogden came to his house to 
see him, on the evening of the 14th day of August. He continues, 
(pages 650 and 651 :) 

“The understanding was then that I should have the job at $3 25 a 



125 


square. 1 was going to do it at $3, but Ogden suggested that I should 
add 25 cents. I gave Ogden some blank paper, and he wrote on it: 

“August 20, 1861. 

“Sir : Please pay the bearer, P. L. Beirce, the sum of fourteen 
hundred and fifty dollars, and stop the same on my contract. Said 
money has been used in the purchase of materials. 

“Major J. McKinstry, Assistant Quartermaster .” 

That was written for me to sign. It is dated the 20th of August, 
a day subsequent to the time when the contract would be let, although 
it was written on the 14th of August, a time previous to the letting 
of the contract. That is a copy of the instrument drawn up by 
Ogden himself, in my presence. I copied it on another piece of paper, 
and signed it. I said, “ Suppose I do not get the contract, or suppose 
I die, that instrument will be out against me.” He said, in that case, 
it would not amount to anything. He said, “If you do not get the 
job, of course the paper will never be paid.” So it remained in 
that way. I did not intend to say anything about this. The fact is, 
I was afraid to open my mouth. 

Question. Did Ogden ask you to say nothing about it? 

Answer. He did. 

Question. When ? 

Answer. He asked me to come up to his office one day. 

Question. When? 

Answer. The day Clapp was arrested. 

Question. What did he say to you about this matter ? 

Answer. He asked me not to say anything about our transactions. 
I told him I was the last man that would do it. But here, being 
under oath, I am compelled to state the transaction.” 

Clapp in his testimony (page 731) gives his account of his arrange¬ 
ment with Ogden. He went to Ogden’s office on one Sunday, and 
found the man Beirce there. He says: 

‘ 1 Ogden spoke to me one side, and said, 1 ‘ The work would be let to¬ 
morrow, Monday, and I want a draft from you.” We figured up the 
work, and ascertained that it would amount to about 3,000 squares. 
We talked about 25 cents a square going to him. We had talked about 
$3 75 a square. I told Ogden that I could afford to do it for $3 25 a 
square; and I proposed to him that if I could get that, he might fix 
it as he chose. He said, “Fix the bid at $3 50, and give me a draft 
for $700.” I said I could not give him a draft. He said he could 
manage that. He handed to me a form, and requested me to look it 
over. It was substantially this: “Major McKinstry: Please pay to 
the bearer, P. L. Beirce, the sum of $700, against contract for mate¬ 
rials furnished.” I told him, of course, that if I did not get the con¬ 
tract the paper would be of no force against me. I then signed it. 
I copied the form which he handed to me, and signed it, and handed 
it over to one of them, but I do not know whether Ogden or Beirce 
got it. They were both present. 


126 


Question. He wanted you to fix it in that shape so that he could 
secure the $700 if you got the job? 

Answer. Yes, sir. He did not want to leave anything unsettled. 
He wanted to secure the money out of the funds which would come 
into my hands. I think I dated the draft on the 14th, which would 
be one day after the work would be let, provided it should be let on 
Monday, as he said it would be.” 

Reference is made in this connexion to the testimony of Charles H. 
Pond in relation to the conduct of the quartermaster on the occasion 
of the exposure of the bribes which Ogden proposed to take for giving 
out the contract for the roofing. Clapp was brought summarily before 
Major McKinstry, who questioned him in regard to the matter. He 
says in his testimony, (page 733:) 

“The first question he asked me was if Ogden ever demanded of me 
one dollar or five hundred dollars for getting the contract for the 
roofing for me. I said as little as I could, and I told him no, that I did 
not demand it of him. He asked me if I ever executed a draft to 
Ogden for $700. I said no, not to Ogden. He asked me if I executed 
a draft to anybody. I said yes, that I had executed a draft to a man by 
the name of Beirce. He asked me who I drew upon. I told him I 
drew upon him. Saidjie, “Did I owe you anything?” I told him 
he did not. He then turned to Pond and said, “ Did Clapp represent 
to you that he had given a draft to Ogden for $700 ?” Pond said that 
he understood me to say so. McKinstry them remarked, “You are 
an old man, and entitled to be believed; but this young man is a liar, 
and I will send him to work upon bread and water.” 

Refusing to hear any explanation from Clapp, McKinstry called a 
file of soldiers to take him off to work on bread and water, but finally 
drew up the following writing, which Clapp subscribed and swore to: 

“St. Louis, August 23, 1861. 

“Having charged Mr. Ogden, the architect of the government, with 
fraud in the management of the business intrusted to him by the 
quartermaster, I hereby revoke said charge and relieve him from the 
same. 

“I hereby swear and declare that I am a good loyal citizen of the 
United States, and will do all that is in my power to uphold and pro¬ 
tect the same; that I will not, directly or indirectly, give aid or in¬ 
formation to the enemy in any manner or form. 

“HENRY CLAPP. 

“Sworn to and subscribed in presence of— 

“S. P. Brady, 

“S. B. Lowe.” 

Clapp further states that this paper was signed and sworn to under 
duress, and the circumstances leave no doubt of the fact. Yet he 
was not under duress when he corruptly agreed to pay Ogden seven 
hundred dollars for obtaining the contract for him. Both he and King 
were guilty of criminal acts in offering to buy the contract of Ogden, 


127 


but neither seemed to be aware of the real criminal character of the 
transaction. As to Ogden, he was an agent of the government and 
in its employment in an important capacity. But he grossly violated 
his trust and attempted to rob the government he had been employed 
to serve. 

But neither King nor Clapp obtained the work. Neither did the 
honest mechanic Cristy, a practical roofer, get it, though he put in a 
bid at $2 20 per square of 100 feet. Another man, Thomson, ob¬ 
tained it, as heretofore stated, at $3 50 per square of 100 feet, from 
McKinstry, who took the matter in hand himself. The roofing, as 
put on by Thomson at the price stated, could, according to the tes¬ 
timony, have been put on for $2 15 a square. 

The consequence is that the government got a poor roof at a big- 
price, the result of corrupt official action. 

As illustrating the state of things existing in St. Louis at this time, 
particularly as connected with the quartermaster’s department, joined 
with the office of provost marshal, your committee quote from the 
testimony of Charles H. Pond. He had heard of the transaction be¬ 
tween Ogden and Clapp, and he told of it in the street, and said he 
“did not like that thing.” Pond says: 

‘ ‘ The thing passed off, and McKinstry, I am told, heard that I had 
told in the street that the quartermaster’s department was swindling 
the government. I had told Bay this story, and Clapp had told sev¬ 
eral others. Major McKinstry summoned me before him forthwith. 
I appeared at his office the next day after I got the summons, between 
nine and ten o’clock in the morning. 

Question. What kind of a summons was it? 

Answer. A summons somewhat like this: “I order you to appear 
before Major McKinstry, the provost marshal, forthwith.” 

Question. By whom was it signed ? 

Answer. 1 cannot say now. 1 got up there, but had not the least 
idea what was to pay, and I began to grow scared, for I had been a 
Union man, and never broke any law in my life, I think. He took 
the summons and laid it on the table, saying he would attend to my 
case in a minute. He sat awhile and fingered over the papers a few 
minutes. “Now,” says he, “I want to know what you have to say. 
God damn you , I will put you on bread and water in the arsenal if you 
do not prove this thing.” I got tremendously scared, seeing the soldiers 
all around there. Mr. John How stepped up and whispered to Mc¬ 
Kinstry. McKinstry then said, “I understand that you are a loyal 
man, but it is no credit to me to be a loyal man.” He cursed and 
swore a great deal about my talking about this matter in the street. 
I had spoken, in fact, to only one man about the matter. Said he, 
“If you do not prove it, God damn you, I will put you in the arsenal 
upon bread and water.” 

Clapp was brought before McKinstry, as provost marshal, and in 
relation to that, Pond continues: 

“When he got Clapp before him he cursed him up hill and down, 
and scared him so that he could not say a single word ; a file of sol- 


128 


diers being all around him, he could not utter a word, I then askecl 
Clapp if Mr. Ogden did not agree to give him $700 if he would get 
the job of roofing for him, and whether he had not given Ogden a 
draft for that amount upon McKinstry. McKinstry said, “ Stop, don't 
answer that question; I am lawyer enough to ask this man all the 
questions I want him to answer." Then he' asked Clapp, as near as 
I can recollect the words, “Did you give Ogden any money, five hun¬ 
dred dollars, or one dollar?" Clapp said, “No." Then Clapp said 
he would like to explain. Says McKinstry, “You stop," and he 
stopped him right where he was. Says he, “Did you agree to give 
him five hundred dollars, or one dollar?" Clapp said, “No." 
“Then,” said McKinstry, “ I will confine you five days upon bread 
and water unless you recant that thing immediately," at the same 
time calling in the sergeant to take him right off. Said Clapp, “If 
you will give me an opportunity I will explain the thing," but Mc- 
Kinstry would not allow it. Clapp says that Ogden drew the form 
of a draft for him to sign, to pay 0. L. Beirce, a friend of Ogden's, 
the sum of $700. 

Question. On whom was the draft drawn ? 

Answer. On McKinstry. 

Question. Was the draft for $700 or $750 ? 

Answer. It was to have been $750, but Clapp had jewed Ogden 
down to $700. as he told me. The soldiers were then brought in, and 
Clapp was forced to sign an oath of recantation, which oath was pub¬ 
lished in the papers about that time." 

TRANSPORTATION, WAGONS, HARNESS, HORSES, MULES, ETC. 

The honest and straightforward testimony of Captain James M. 
Bradshaw, a quartermaster of the United States army, in the volun¬ 
teer service, and who Major Allen says is a “ thoroughly honest man," 
gives an account of the frauds which are perpetrated, and the loose, 
irregular, and scandalous manner in which things that came under 
his observation were managed.—(See testimony, page 565.) 

Captain Bradshaw seems to have had such troubles as a faithful 
public officer might have expected, standing between the government 
and a gang of rapacious contractors. His troubles with Worth and 
Palmer because he would not sign their vouchers to suit them, their 
displeasure because he would not allow them $68 for sets of harness 
costing $48, and made by an arrant secessionist at that, are all set 
forth in his testimony. In answer to a qitestion what he knew of the 
connexion of Palmer and Haskell with purchases for the army, Cap¬ 
tain Bradshaw makes the following answer, which illustrates the man¬ 
ner in which middle men, in so many instances, manage to get be¬ 
tween the original party holding the articles which are wanted, and 
the government: 

“Question. What knowledge have you of the connexion of Palmer 
& Haskell with purchases for the army ? 

Answer. Captain Turnley told me that he received an order from 
General Fremont, stating that there were 6,000 overcoats here which 


129 


the army needed very much, and that he should try to strain the 
credit of the government, and get the evereoats. Turnley went to a. 
man who had money here, and told him what General Fremont wanted, 
and asked him if he would advance the money for them. He said he- 
would do anything to accommodate Fremont or the government, and 
inquired how much money it would require. Turnley said he would 
see the man who had the overcoats. He did so, and found that the 
man wanted $8 each. That would make the amount required $48,000. 
Turnley perfected the arrangement for raising the money, and then 
went after, the overcoats. He was informed then that the overcoats 
had been transferred to other parties for the government. Turnley 
went to see them, and they said they wanted $10 GO apiece for the 
overcoats. Turnley then said he would have nothing to do with the 
overcoats. I understood that these parties were Palmer & Haskell. 

Question. What other contracts had those parties for furnishing 
articles to the government? 

Answer. I know of none, unless it was for forage. They furnished 
a large amount of hay and oats. There were some 36,000 bushels of 
oats taken to Jefferson City, and they lie there now on the bank rotting . 
My wagon master came back from there yesterday, and he told me so.” 

It was undoubtedly true, as Captain Bradshaw further stated in 
his testimony, “whenever the government needed anything these 
men were always on hand to get the government to buy of them, and 
when a man wanted to furnish anything they seemed to be there.” 

Your committee further quote from Captain Bradshaw’s testimony: 

“Sometimes orders would come to me for other property, and I 
would want it done according to the regular way of doing business, 
but could not get it done. General Fremont once sent me word that 
he had not time to do that, and that I must issue everything that 
men wanted immediately and without delay. I have done so, and 
have sent off hundreds and thousands of dollars’ worth of property 
without any written orders. I sent off 100 wagons by General Mc- 
Kinstry’s order. The whole burden of sending off property has 
fallen upon me, and I have no receipt for what I have sent away, 
though it was my duty to get receipts. 

Question. When you asked that the army regulation should be 
complied with, you were ordered by superior authority to furnish the 
articles without receipts or anything else ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; and that I must not delay the matter. Prop¬ 
erty is frequently sent to certain points, and the quartermasters to 
whom they are sent send back word that the property does not come 
according to the invoice of the goods to them. At stations where the 
goods pass the regiments there take off whatever they want; if they 
want wagon bows, they would take them; if they wanted wagon 
tongues, they would take them; and so it happened that very few of 
the articles went entire if they could possibly be divided. So, much 
of the property never got to the place of destination. I sent ten 
wagons up the country to somebody, and General Seigel took them 
for his own use before he got there, and then another general took 

9 


130 


the wagons from Siegel, and I got no receipt for them. I have no 
receipt for anything I sent up to Captain Nevill, quartermaster at 
Jefferson City, and he denies that he has received anything. I sup 
pose 1 am in for some two or three hundred thousand dollars’ worth 
of property. 1 know I have not appropriated it to myself, but it is 
scattered to the winds, and I do not know that I shall ever get my 
accounts straightened out.” 

A FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR COMMISSION. 

David Pratt states (see his testimony, page 941) that Governor 
Barstow, of Wisconsin, was in St. Louis “some time, making efforts 
to gain a colonelcy commission.” Pratt seems to have been in that 
locality long enough to know the way in which things were going on, 
and he suggested to Barstow that Judge Edward P. Cowles, then 
tarrying in St. Louis, formerly judge in the State of New York, and 
resident of the city of New York, could obtain it for him. Where¬ 
upon Barstow told Pratt if Cowles would go up to the “Tycoon” and 
get that commission he would give him five thousand dollars. It 
would appear from the testimony of Pratt that the great dispenser of 
commissions, contracts, <fcc., at the headquarters, was known, in the 
mystical language of the hangers-on for contracts and commissions, as 
the “Tycoon.” Pratt was the agent of a New York house dealing 
in cavalry equipments, and to ingratiate himself with Barstow for the 
purpose of turning an honest penny .in peddling his wares in case 
Barstow was successful in getting his commission, was willing to be¬ 
come the go-between for Barstow and Cowles. Pratt drove the bar¬ 
gain with Cowles, who went with General Fremont to Jefferson City 
and obtained the commission. Barstow said he could afford to pay 
this amount of five thousand dollars, because he would make “twenty 
or thirty thousand dollars” profit in buying a thousand horses. But 
Pratt was a victim of “misplaced confidence.” After engaging 
Cowles to procure the commission, in return for which he expected 
Barstow to buy his traps, it seems there was another man who had 
the inside track with Barstow, and that Pratt, to use his own lan¬ 
guage, “had been sold.” He states in his testimony that he over¬ 
heard a conversation “in low octaves” between Barstow and this 
other man, whose name was Coates, and Avho was to be the quarter¬ 
master of the regiment, which was to be raised in Wisconsin. The 
purport of the conversation was as to how much money could bo made 
in fitting out the regiment. Pratt seems to have been very good- 
natured in regard to the matter, and appears to have been satisfied 
by writing Barstow a letter, stating that he had discovered he had 
been sold, and that the only object of the communication was to 
notify him of the fact that he had made the discovery. 

The circumstances surrounding this phase of fraud and imposition 
on the government, as detailed by the testimony of Pratt, would 
seem almost ludicrous, were it not that there is disclosed the shame¬ 
less attempt to plunder the government under the guise of patriotism, 
which in too many instances has been shown to be the “last refuge 
of scoundrels.” 

Instead of obtaining a commission with the single and patriotic 


purpose of serving the country in this hour of peril and calamity, it 
would seem it was obtained in this instance for the express purpose 
of robbing the treasury through the purchase of horses for the regi¬ 
ment and the equipment of the troops. No language of condemnation 
can be too strong for such a transaction, and a sad day will it be for 
the nation when any portion of our armies shall be under the control 
of men who are ready to sacrifice the interests and honor of their 
country for the gratification of their selfish interests. 

MANUFACTURE OF RAILROAD CARS. 

Another source of improvident and unnecessary expenditure o f 
public money in the western department was in the construction of 
railroad cars, by the government, at St. Louis. 

One Edward H. Castle had been appointed by General Fremont 
general superintendent of transportation by railroad in the western 
department, and seems to have been authorized by General Fremont 
to provide for an increase of the cars for transporting troops on the 
Pacific railroad. It is determined to have one hundred cars built. 
In answer to the question, did you advertise for proposals for building 
the cars, Mr. Castle answers, no, sir. 

Question. How soon were these cars to be finished ? 

Answer. I think within forty days. 

Question. Did you make the contract ? 

Answer. No, sir; I do not think I did. Judge Corwine, of Cin¬ 
cinnati, drew the contract. He recommended a man whom he knew 
to be a man of responsibility, and able to furnish the means to carry 
out the contract. 

Question. Did you receive any proposition for building them? 

Answer. I did, from all the car-builders in the city. 

Question. How did their bids range? 

Answer. Mr. Mowry's proposition was fifty or a hundred dollars 
below that of anybody else. 

Question. Are you certain of that? 

Answer. I know it was much the lowest. 

Question. You can swear that it was lower than the bid of John D. 
Shaffer ? 

Answer. It was lower than the bid of any other party which was 
made to me. 

Question. What became of the propositions? 

Answer. They were handed to General Fremont. 

Question. Did you have anything to do with them? 

Answer. I received the propositions. They called upon me to know 
the kind of cars which weie wanted, and I went and showed them the 
kind of cars we desired, and upon that they based their propositions. 

Question. Who finally determined to whom the contract should be 
given at the price at which it was given out? 

Answer. I cannot say whether it was Judge Corwine, or General 
Fremont, or Colonel Woods. As Mowry’s was the lowest bid, it was 
given to him. 

Question. Was Mowry here at the time? 

Answer. He was not here, but had written a letter to General Fre- 


132 


mont stating that lie had the means and facilities for building cars, 
and he ordered Colonel Woods to write upon the back of it a reference 
of the matter to me to look into it, to see what kind of car I wanted, 
and to see Mowry. 

Question. Did you see Mowry? 

Answer. Judge Corwine telegraphed him to come here, and he did 
so. Corwine introduced him to me. 

Question. Did Judge Corwine recommend him? 

Answer. He recommended him as a good man, and as a man who 
had the means of carrying out the contract. 

Question. What were the terms and conditions of that contract ? 

Answer. I never saw the contract after it was written, but I believe 
it provided that he should build the cars according to the model I 
showed him upon the Pacific road, for $825 apiece. The Pacific road 
had paid $800 for such cars, and those cars were to be got up in a 
hurry, and cost a little more. The platform cars, 1 think, were to 
be $700. 

John D. Shaffer, a car-builder, of St. Louis, testifies that Mr. 
Mowry had sub-let to him the building of the bodies of fifty of these 
cars at $275 each. He states, further, that although Castle did not 
advertise for proposals, that he bid for the contract, and speaks as 
follows as to his own bid : 

Question. Did you ever hear anything from your bid ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you hear anything of the bid of Mowry ? 

Answer. No, sir ; I have heard that he gets considerable more 
than my bid was ; my bid was $790 a car, complete, for such a car 
as the sample showed us ; they wanted me to make an estimate of 
what I would build such a class of cars for, and I made an offer to 
build them for $790. 

Question. Could you have given good security for the performance 
of the contract? 

Answer. I could. 

Question. Did you offer such security ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I have heard that Mowry gets $825 for build¬ 
ing a car inferior to wliat I proposed to build. 

Question. Do you know the reason of that ? 

Answer. Captain Castle stated that my proposal was for cash, 
while Mowry built them to be paid for at the convenience of the 
government. 

Question. What was the difference between your bid and that of 
Mowry ? 

Answer. $35 a car ; but in the style of car which is being built the 
difference would be $150 a car. 

Question. And that additional amount was given, as you under¬ 
stood, on account of the difference in the mode of payment? 

Answer. I suppose so. 

Question. Was that the only reason you heard given? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Castle knew that you had put in a proposition ? 


133 


Answer. Yes, sir ; for I delivered it to him myself. 

Again : 

Question. What will Mowry make upon each car you are manufac¬ 
turing for him? 

Answer. I suppose he can clear $250 on each car. 

But however objectionable the mode of letting the contract may be, 
the main ground of objection is to be found in the fact that the cars 
were not actually required. Castle himself, in answer to the ques¬ 
tion as to how many platform cars the Pacific road had, answers: 

Answer. I do not recollect, but I am of opinion forty or fifty. 

Question. Did you ever inquire of the president of that road as to 
the amount of rolling stock it had? 

Answer. I did ; and had an entire inventory taken of it. 

Question. Do you state that there are not more than fifty of those 
platform cars? 

Answer. I judge there are not more than fifty. 

Yet Shaffer, who was familiar with the rolling stock of the Pacific 
railroad, in answer to the question as to the number of cars on 
that road, says : 

They have on that road about 125 cars, which they call house cars, 
for the transportation of merchandise ; they have 80 cattle or stock 
cars, 125 platform cars, and 34 passenger cars. 

Question. Could these platform cars be converted readily and 
cheaply so that men could be transported in them ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; they are using them now every day, more or 
less, for that purpose: An expense of $15 or $20 upon each of them 
would make them comfortable for men. 

And George K. Taylor, the president of the Pacific railroad, on 
being examined as to the necessity of constructing these cars, testifies 
as follows : 

On the 31st of August I received an official note from Colonel 
Woods, in the name of the general commanding, requiring me to fur¬ 
nish information to his office forthwith of the condition of our road. 
In writing, 1 told Colonel Woods—and I delivered the letter in per¬ 
son—that the government then owed us sixty-two or eighty-two 
thousand dollars ; that we were impoverished, but that if the gov¬ 
ernment would pledge me $10,000 I would alter fifty platform cars 
so as to make them suitable for the transportation of men, and that 
by so doing we would increase the capacity of our road 3,000 men 
per trip ; that, in addition to that, I would put up two bridges over 
Gray’s creek ; put up the two bridges west of Jefferson City by the 
5th of September ; that I would get out of the machine shop of the 
company four disabled engines, and have them put in condition for 
use, and that I would have the Laramie bridge finished by the 5th of 
September. That letter I delivered to Colonel Woods myself, but 
we did not get any money, and the company was left to scramble 
along as best they could. 

Question. Can you tell the comipittee of any person who can in- 


134 


form them whether any contract has been entered into by the agents 
of the government for the construction of any cars to run over that 
road ? 

Answer. I do not know anything about the matter myself, but 1 
have a tenant upon Market street who is a car-builder, and who pre¬ 
sented himself to me a few days ago, and wanted permission to use 
our sheds for the purpose of putting up cars after they were framed. 
This man, J. D. Shaefer, told me he had a sub-contract for the mak¬ 
ing of fifty cars. I told him I must consult with the executive com¬ 
mittee of our road. I convened the committee, and laid the request 
before them in writing, and they authorized me to allow him to use 
our tracts under the sheds for the purpose of building fifty platform 
cars. 

Question. What is the character of those cars ? 

Answer. This Shaefer was a bidder for building 100 cars; and he 
said he was the lowest bidder. 

Question. Did you make any demand upon the government for ad¬ 
ditional cars and rolling stock ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. The parties who are having the cars built are building 
them entirely upon their own responsibility ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I have never been consulted about increasing 
our rolling stock, except, as I have told you, in reference to altering 
50 of our cars by putting a railing around them for $10,000. 

Question. Would those 50 cars have enabled you to have done all 
the business required on the road? 

Answer. It would have increased the capacity of our road three 
thousand men per trip. 

Question. And that, in all probability, would have satisfied all re¬ 
quisitions made upon you ? 

Answer. I think so. If we had had the money we would have 
made the change as a matter of profit. 

Unimportant as this business seems to have been, General Fre¬ 
mont and Richard M. Corwine, his judge advocate, gave it special 
attention. Judge Corwine, in his answer to an inquiry, testifies: 

Question. Has ever your legal opinion been asked in regard to 
contracts; and have you ever been requested to draw up any contracts 
in which the government was interested ? 

Answer. I have been called upon to draw up two contracts: one 
with the North Missouri railroad, and one with N. G. Mowry, of 
Cincinnati. 

Question. What do you know in relation to that contract with 
Mowry ? 

Answer. Nothing, whatever, except what is expressed upon the 
face of it. 

Question. Do you know Mowry? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Where does he reside ? 

Answer. In Cincinnati. 


135 


Question. State all the circumstances connected with the drawing 
up of that contract. 

Answer. General Fremont sent for me one day, and told me there 
was a contract to be drawn between the department and Mr. Mowry, 
in relation to the building of some railroad cars, and he gave me a 
memorandum of the substance of the contract. 

Question. Was that memorandum given to you by General Fremont 
himself? 

Answer. I think it was. He sent for me to my office. At all 
events I drew up the contract from that memorandum. 

Question. Had you any conversation with Mowry in regard to it? 

Answer. Not until he came to execute it. 

The contract for the building of the cars is as follows: It will be 
Seen that it is made by order of General Fremont, specially: 

This agreement, made and entered into this 22d day of September, 
1861, between Brigadier General J. McKinstry, acting assistant quar¬ 
termaster general for western department, for and on behalf of the 
United States, of the first part, and Albert S. Mowry, of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, of the second part, witnesseth: 

That the party of the second part, for and in consideration of the 
stipulations hereinafter mentioned, agrees to furnish the party of the 
first part fifty box cars and fifty platform cars, the box cars similar to 
those known on the Pacific railroad as accommodation freight cars, to 
be built and fully completed in the most substantial manner, and 
according to the plans and specifications to be furnished by Captain 
Castle, strictly to his acceptance, and whose opinions as to the work¬ 
manship is to be final between the parties. Said Mowry also agrees 
to deliver fifty of said cars in eighteen days, and fifty in thirty days, 
on the track of the Pacific railroad, free of expense to the party of the 
first part, and as many more as the party of the first part may require, 
in forty-five days from the date of this contract. And the party of 
the first part, for and in behalf of the United States, agrees to pay, or 
cause to be paid, to the party of the second part, at the quartermaster's 
office of the United States army, St. Louis, Missouri, at the rate of, 
as follows, viz: 

Eight hundred and twenty-five dollars for box cars, and seven 
hundred dollars for platform cars, at the time of their delivery and 
acceptance by Captain Castle. 

It is expressly agreed that no member of Congress shall have any 
share or part in or derive any benefit arising from this contract. 

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals the 
day and year before written. 

Signed in quadruplicate. 

By order of Major General John C. Fremont. 

J. McKINSTRY, [seat,] 

Brigadier General and Quartermaster. 
ALBERT L. MOWRY, [seal.] 

Witness— 

R. F. Williams. 

LI. W. G. Clements. 


136 


The committee are clearly of the opinion that these cars were not 
required by any public interest ; that the cars on the Pacific rail¬ 
road were fully equal to the locomotives on the road, and, with the 
slight alterations suggested by the president of the road, fully equal 
to the demands of the army. In the judgment of the committee the 
expenditures of from $80,000 to $90,000 in building these cars, and 
the expense of building twent} 7 -five street cars in St. Louis, as testi¬ 
fied to by Mr. Shaffer, (see page 871,) was entirely uncalled for, and 
an inexcusable extravagance, because an unnecesary expense ; and 
the $250 of profit which Mr. Shaffer testifies resulted from the con¬ 
tract to Mr. Mowry, say $25,000 of profit in the aggregate, and the 
fact that a lower bid is entirely overlooked, and the contract itself 
receives the special attention of the commanding general and the 
judge advocate, and still no security whatever is required on the part 
of Mowry for the fulfilment of the contract, are facts which cannot 
be overlooked. The committee are of opinion that the entire trans¬ 
action is unjustifiable on the ground of any public necessity, and that 
it furnishes another instance of the necessity of capacity and integ¬ 
rity and that singleness of purpose in official position which consid¬ 
ers only the national welfare in the conduct of public affairs. 

The committee will submit the evidence (accompanied by a further 
report) taken at Cairo, Chicago, and Harrisburg, as soon as it can 
be written out by their stenographer. 

C. H. VAN WYCK, 

Chairman. 

E. B. WASHBURNE. 

W. S. HOLMAN. 

R. E. FENTON. 

H. L. DAWES. 

W. G. STEELE. 

The following resolutions were offered by Mr. Van Wyck : 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to decline making any further 
payment to the parties interested in the steamboat “ Calaline on account of the charter 
of said vessel by the United States on the 25th day of April, 1861. 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to adjust the claim against the 
government for the five thousand Hall carbines, purchased through Simon Stevens, esq., 
by General John C. Fremont, on the 6th day of August, 1861, and afterwards delivered at 
the United States arsenal at the city of St. Louis, on the basis of a sale of said arms to the 
government for $12 50 each, rejecting all other demands against the government on ac¬ 
count of the purchase of said arms. 

Resolved, Ihat the practice of employing irresponsible parties, having no official con¬ 
nexion with the government, in the performance of public duties which may be properly 
performed by regular officers of the government, and of purchasing by private contract 
supplies for the different departments, where open and fair competition might be properly 
invited by reasonable advertisement for proposals, is injurious to the public service and 
meets the unqualified disapprobation of this House. 


















. 













■ 







































































' ’ • ■ . ■■ ■ 











































' 


































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

Trp«t ra ' 2 ?o a9ent: Ma 9 nesiu ™ Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnoloqies 

WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

ill Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






























































































































































































































































































